FOIREQ21/00019 001
FOIREQ21/00019 002
FOIREQ21/00019 003
FOIREQ21/00019 004
FOIREQ21/00019 005
FOIREQ21/00019 006
Background
On 27 January 2018, the complainant made an FOI request to the Department via the Right
to Know website for access to documents relating to allegations and related media articles
concerning former Australian Public Service Commissioner, Mr John Lloyd.
On 31 January 2018, the Department wrote to the complainant acknowledging the receipt of
the FOI request and advising him that a decision was due by 26 February 2018.
On 13 March 2018, the Department requested that the complainant:
… advise whether you be willing to exclude the following documents from the scope of your
FOI request:
· daily media summaries
· where an email is contained in a later email chain, exclude the earlier email as a duplicate.
On 14 March 2018, the complaint responded to the Department’s request, stating:
Where a relevant email is contained in a later email chain, I am willing to exclude the earlier
email as a duplicate.
I am not willing to exclude relevant daily media summaries because there is a wide public
interest in knowing when the Secretary/head of the APS was put on notice of corrupt conduct
engaged in by a senior public servant who is the head of an agency within the portfolio for
which the Secretary has oversight.
On 23 March 2018, the complainant sought IC review of the Department’s deemed access
refusal decision under s 54L of the FOI Act (OAIC reference: MR18/00212).4
On the same date, the OAIC conducted preliminary inquiries with the Department in relation
to the IC review under s 54V of the FOI Act.
On 27 March 2018, the Department provided a response to the OAIC’s preliminary inquiries
and advised that a decision in relation to the FOI request was expected by 20 April 2018.
On 20 April 2018, the Department provided the OAIC with an update on its processing of the
request and advised that ‘we are now proposing to notify a decision to the applicant by
Friday, 27 April 2018’.
4 The FOI request was received by the Department on 27 January 2018. Therefore, a decision on the
request was to be provided no later than 26 February 2018 in accordance with s 15(5)(b) of the FOI Act.
2
FOIREQ21/00019 007
On 23 April 2018, the complainant requested an update from the OAIC in relation to his IC
review as he had not yet received a decision from the Department. The complainant also
advised that he wished to make a complaint regarding:
… the Department’s repeated and ongoing failure to deal with FOI requests in accordance with
its legal obligations.5
On 27 April 2018, the Department issued its decision on the applicant’s FOI request,
identifying four documents (total ing 57 pages) within the scope of the request. The
Department provided access in full to two documents and refused access in full to the two
remaining documents. In making its decision, the Department relied on the documents
affecting enforcement of law and protection of public safety exemption (ss 37(1)(a) and
37(2)(a)), the deliberative processes exemption (s 47C), the certain operations of agencies
exemption (s 47E(d)) and the personal privacy exemption (s 47F) of the FOI Act.6
On 30 April 2018, the OAIC wrote to the complainant requesting he advise if he wished to
withdraw or continue with his FOI complaint in light of the Department providing its decision
and relevant documents.
On 9 May 2018, the complainant withdrew his IC review under s 54R of the FOI Act. In relation
to his complaint, the complainant also advised as follows:
The Department's FOI processing function appears to be characterised by a systemic disregard
for the law. An assessment of the FOI applications made of the Department by way of the
righttoknow website suggests that the Department acts illegally in respect of around 50% of
the applciations [sic] it receives. And so I'd like to pursue my complaint.
Here's a short sample of FOI requests that havent' [sic] been dealt with by the Department in
accordance with the requirements of the FOI Act (mainly the temporal requirements of
s.15(5)(b)): [list of 22 links to FOI requests on the Right to Know website].
The complainant contends there have been further delays experienced by FOI applicants
when the Department processes FOI requests through the Right to Know website. Please see
Attachment B for further details.
On 31 May 2018, the OAIC notified the Department of the complaint and conducted
preliminary inquiries with the Department under s 72 of the FOI Act.
On 15 June 2018, the Department responded to the OAIC’s preliminary inquiries.
On 9 November 2018, the OAIC notified the Department under s 75 of the FOI Act that the
Information Commissioner had decided to investigate the complaint and requested that the
Department provide the OAIC with submissions in response to the complaint allegations.
5 This complaint is the subject of this matter: OAIC reference CP18/01243.
6 See https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/pmc action against aps misconduc. On 9 May 2018, the
complainant withdrew his IC review application under s 54R of the FOI Act (MR18/00212).
3
FOIREQ21/00019 008
During the course of the investigation, the Department provided submissions addressing the
allegation raised by the complainant and outlining its current FOI processes.
Investigation findings
Pursuant to s 87 of the FOI Act, the investigation findings wil set out my opinions,
conclusions and suggestions about how the processes of the Department might be
improved.
I have considered al the material provided by the Department and the complainant in this
matter.
Issue: Compliance with statutory processing periods
Allegation
The complainant alleged that the Department did not comply with the statutory timeframes
in s 15(5)(b) of the FOI Act. The complainant further al eged, based on his assessment of FOI
requests to the Department through the Right to Know website, that the Department fails to
meet the statutory processing timeframes in about 50% of FOI requests.7
Legislative framework
The FOI Act provides a statutory timeframe of 30 days to process an FOI request (s 15(5)).
That period can be extended by up to 30 days with the applicant’s agreement (s 15AA), by
30 days if consultation with a third party is undertaken (s 15(6)), and by 30 days if
consultation with a foreign entity is undertaken (s 15(8)).
An agency or minister may apply to the Information Commissioner for extension of the
statutory timeframe for complex or voluminous requests (s 15AB) or fol owing a deemed
access refusal decision (s 15AC).8
The FOI Guidelines at [3.139] state:
An agency or minister must, as soon as practicable, and no later than 30 days after receiving a
request, take all reasonable steps to enable the applicant to be notified of a decision on the
request (s 15(5)(b)). Section 15(5)(b) provides that the 30-day processing period commences on
the day after the day the agency or minister is taken to have received a request that meets the
formal requirements of s s15(2), (2A). An agency should act promptly to assist an applicant
whose request does not meet the formal requirements in keeping with its obligations under
s 15(3).
7 Complainant’s submissions of 9 May 2018.
8 See also,
FOI Guidelines at [3.125].
4
FOIREQ21/00019 009
Deemed access refusal
Section 15AC provides that where a decision on an FOI request has not been provided to the
applicant within the statutory processing period, the principal officer of the agency or the
minister is deemed to have made a decision refusing access to the documents (s 15AC(3)).
The FOI Guidelines at [3.154] – [3.155]:
The consequence of a deemed refusal is that an applicant may apply for IC review (s 54L(2)(a)).
... In addition, once the time has expired and there is a deemed decision, the agency or minister
cannot impose a charge for access...
Where an access refusal decision is deemed to have been made before a substantive decision is
made, the agency or minister continues to have an obligation to provide a statement of
reasons on the FOI request. This obligation to provide a statement of reasons on the FOI
request continues until any IC review of the deemed decision is finalised. …
Department’s submissions
Overview of the Department’s process for dealing with FOI requests
The Department’s submissions of 10 December 2018 state:
The Department has a “devolved” decision-making process for dealing with FOI requests. FOI
requests are received and managed by the Department’s FOI and Privacy Section. Document
searches and decision on access to documents are the responsibility of the relevant Senior
Executive Service-level decision maker in the line area that has responsibility for the subject-
matter of the FOI request.
When the Department receives an FOI request, the FOI and Privacy Section identifies the
relevant line area (and consequently the relevant decision maker) that will be responsible for
document searches and making the decision on access to the documents.
Department’s data regarding timeframes
The Department’s submissions of 15 June 2018 state:
The Department notes that the percentage of FOI requests that the Department finalised within
the statutory time period in 2016-17 is substantially above average for all agencies for 2016-17
as in detailed in the table below…
Agency
Requests
Response time
Percentage of
determined
within statutory
requests
time period
determined within
statutory time
period
Department of the
130
105
80.76%
Prime Minister and
Cabinet
All agencies
34,029
19,607
57.61%
5
FOIREQ21/00019 010
The Department’s submissions of 11 February 2019 further explain:
Since 31 October 2018, the Department’s caseload has stabilised and there has been a
significant increase in the percentage of the Department’s FOI caseload which has been
finalised, or is currently on track to be finalised, within the statutory processing period. …
This trend in the Department’s improved timeliness in processing FOI requests means that
timeframes for FOI requests received by the Department through the RTK [Right to Know]
website have also improved. Again, this is not because the Department processes requests
form the RTK website differently to other requests, but is a reflection of the Department’s
overall improved capability to process FOI requests.
The Department submits that its caseload has stabilised since 31 October 2018 and this has
increased its timeliness in processing FOI requests, explaining:
… as at 5 October 2018, 58% of the Department’s FOI caseload was [processed] within the
statutory processing period. As at 25 January 2019, 87% of the Department’s FOI caseload is on
track to being finalised within the statutory processing time.
Department’s submissions regarding the Right to Know website
The Department’s submissions of 11 February 2019 explain:
Between 1 July 2017 and 31 October 208, the Department received 16 valid FOI requests from
the RTK website. …
From the information the Department holds, it appears that one of the 16 requests was made
by s 47F
, which is the subject of the current complaint. [footnote omitted]
…
Eight requests were finalised outside the statutory processing period (as extended, where
applicable). …
There were three requests that were not finalised within the statutory processing period and
for which an extension of time was not sought by the Department:
• One request was received on 8 August 2017. The Department identified that the
requested information was publicly available and, on the day after the statutory
processing period ended, advised the applicant of this fact (including the website where
the information could be accessed by the applicant). The Department also advised the
applicant that unless the Department heard from the applicant, then the Department
will consider the request to have been withdrawn. The applicant did not respond to the
Department and therefore the request was finalised.
• One request was received on 12 December 2017, which meant that a significant part of
the processing period fell during the Department's Christmas shutdown period. The
Department expected that a decision would be notified to the Applicant on time,
however, as set out in the Department's previous response to this investigation, the
Department received an unforeseen substantial volume of FOI requests during the same
period, which placed significant strain on the Department's limited FOI resources and
impacted on the timeliness of the processing of all FOI requests. The Department
notified the applicant of its decision 19 days after the statutory processing period ended.
6
FOIREQ21/00019 011
• One request was received on 27 January 2018. This was a request from s 47F
.
Similar to the request described above, the timeliness in the processing of this request
was impacted by the substantial volume of FOI requests that was being processed by
the Department at the time the request was received. The Department notified the
applicant of its decision two months after the statutory processing period ended.
Further details were provided in the Department's response to Part 1(c) of the questions
in the Notice. [footnotes omitted]
The Department also submits that it does not distinguish FOI requests by the way in which
they are received by the Department, stating:
The Department does not distinguish requests made under the
Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) (FOI Act) based on whether they were lodged through a public platform, such as the RTK
website, or based on the applicant.
In relation to FOI requests made to the Department via the Right to Know website, the
Department submitted on 11 February 2019:
For the period 1 July 2018 and 15 January 2019, all valid FOI requests received by the
Department through the RTK website have either been finalised, or on track to being finalised,
within the statutory processing period under the FOI Act…
Department’s reasons for delay
The Department has provided the fol owing reasons for the delay experienced by the
complainant:
• the Department experienced ‘short term resourcing constraints during the 2017-18
financial year, where the Department experienced a substantial and unforeseeable
increase in the number of FOI requests that it received’
• the Department experienced an unforeseen increase of FOI requests prior to the
2017-2018 Christmas/New year shutdown period
• on 21 December 2017, a single applicant made 87 FOI requests to the Department
• the Department was unable to obtain extensions of time for the 87 FOI requests on
the basis that the applicant did not agree to extensions under s 15AA and the OAIC
advised that extension requests under s 15AB had to be made on a case-by-case
basis, which had a substantial impact on both the Department’s ability to meet
timeframes in relation to the 87 FOI requests and in relation to other FOI requests
received during the relevant period, and
• absences of the relevant decision maker due to unforeseen personal reasons and
workplace commitments tied to parliamentary obligations.
7
FOIREQ21/00019 012
Steps taken by the Department to improve compliance with statutory timeframes
The Department has also detailed the steps it has taken to improve compliance with the
statutory timeframes under the FOI Act, which are summarised as fol ows:
− resources:
• increase of staff in the FOI and Privacy Section of the Department
• engagement of additional staff to assist the FOI team during periods of high volume
of FOI request and FOI-related casework
• engagement of external expertise to provide advice on complex issues and assist
with processing FOI requests.
− education:
• weekly SES meetings have FOI as a standing agenda item
• continued education and training of the Department’s FOI advisers
• during the second half of 2018, the Department engaged the Australian
Government Solicitor to provide specialised FOI training to decision makers and
FOI contact officers within each Department branch, with the aim of:
increasing knowledge and awareness of the FOI Act
provide a high-level overview of the Department’s responsibilities and
obligations under the FOI Act
to encourage the adequacy of resources and the priority given to FOI requests
familiarise the Department’s branch FOI Contact Officers with the standards and
requirements for document retrieval and assessment.
• additional training will be provided on a regular basis, and
• the Department is working on development of a centralised suite of online training
modules for SES decision-makers.
− transformation:
• the Department is undertaking a review of its processes to ensure that decision
makers are provided with ‘helpful and effective assistance in performing their
duties’, and
• the Department is currently transitioning to a centralised digital case management
system. When implemented, the centralised system will assist with more efficient
record keeping which will increase efficiency in processing FOI requests.
8
FOIREQ21/00019 013
Discussion
Statutory processing period
The FOI request was made on 27 January 2018. Pursuant to s 15(5)(b) of the FOI Act, the
statutory processing period is ‘as soon as practicable but in any case not later than the end
of the period of 30 days after the day on which the request is received’ by an agency or
minister. Therefore, the Department was due to provide a decision to the complainant not
later than 26 February 2018.
The Department provided the complaint with its substantive decision on 27 April 2018.
The Department advises that it has a ‘devolved’ decision making FOI process, in which each
line area within the Department has a decision maker appointed to make FOI decisions for
documents related to that particular line area. The decision maker then liaises with the FOI
team in order to process the FOI request.
However, the Department’s devolved decision-making process should not hinder FOI
decisions being made within the statutory timeframe, even in circumstances where the
al ocated decision maker is not available due to expected or unexpected leave.
Beyond confirming which line area officer would be the decision maker, no steps were taken
to process the complainant’s request prior to the statutory timeframe expiring. It is unclear
whether the FOI team made further contact with the relevant decision maker during this
time, however it should have been clear to the Department that a decision would not be
provided to the complainant within the statutory timeframe and an extension of time would
be required.
I accept that the Department’s receipt of 87 FOI requests on the second last day before the
2017-2018 Christmas/New Year shutdown period had a substantial impact on the
Department’s ability to comply with the statutory timeframes at that time.
The Department submits:
… once the Department was notified by the OAIC on 23 March 2018 of the request for IC review,
the Department’s priority was firstly to respond to the OAIC’s enquiries and requests for
information, and secondly to finalise the decision as soon as practicable. It is arguable that an
extension of time under s 15AC of the FOI Act was open for discussion at this time, however this
did not appear to have been considered by either the OAIC or the Department, based on
documented correspondence on file.
Section 15AC of the FOI Act provides for agencies to apply in writing to the Information
Commissioner for further time to deal with the request.
While it was open to the Department to apply for an extension of time under s 15AC of the
FOI Act, this did not occur. Further, the OAIC is unlikely to suggest an agency apply for a
9
FOIREQ21/00019 014
s 15AC extension of time in circumstances such as these where it is unlikely that an extension
of time would have been granted, as:
• while the documents within the scope of the request may have been considered
sensitive, the matter does not appear complex in that the request was specific and
the applicant provided clarification when requested, and the request did not appear
voluminous
• no consultations had occurred under ss 26A, 27 or 27A of the FOI Act
• the Department did not appear to have engaged in discussions with the applicant
about the delay and any extension of time application, and
• the applicant had already sought IC review of the Department’s deemed access
refusal decision.
In consideration of the statistical data provided by the Department for the 2016-17 financial
year above, I have also examined the Department’s statistical data for the 2017-18 and 2018-
19 financial years as fol ows:
2017-18 financial year
Agency
Requests
Response time
Percentage of
determined
within statutory
requests
time period
determined within
statutory time
period
Department of the
180
64
35.56%
Prime Minister and
Cabinet
All agencies
31,674
26,879
84.86%
2018-19 financial year
Agency
Requests
Response time
Percentage of
determined
within statutory
requests
time period
determined within
statutory time
period
Department of the
117
85
72.65%
Prime Minister and
Cabinet
All agencies
30,143
24,892
82.58%
It is apparent from the Department’s processing of the complainant’s FOI request and the
statistical data and submissions provided by the Department, that statutory timeframes
10
FOIREQ21/00019 015
were not being met in the majority of FOI requests received by the Department in the 2017-
18 financial year.9
The statistical data demonstrates that during the last financial year, the Department has
improved on its compliance with statutory timeframes. I note that this is below the average
for al agencies for the 2018-19 financial year. While I acknowledge this statistical increase in
compliance by the Department on the previous financial year, it must also be considered in
that context that the Department experienced a decrease in the total number of FOI requests
received in the 2018-19 financial year of -38.41%, when compared with the previous 2017-18
financial year.10
Findings
I find The Department did not comply with s 15(5)(b) of the FOI Act as it did not provide the
complainant with a decision in relation to his FOI request within the statutory timeframe of
30 days and did not seek an extension of time under ss 15AA or 15AB of the FOI Act.
However, based on the information provided by the Department during the course of this
investigation, I acknowledge the steps taken by the Department to implement a variety of
strategies to support Department officers to comply with the statutory timeframes under the
FOI Act. I further note that these strategies have already had a demonstrated impact on
increasing the Department’s ability to meet statutory timeframes for processing FOI
requests.
Recommendations
Pursuant to s 88 of the FOI Act, I make the fol owing investigation recommendations:
1. The Secretary, or relevant Deputy Secretary with responsibility for FOI and
information access, issue a statement to all staff highlighting the Department’s
obligations under the FOI Act and draw attention to the pro disclosure emphasis in
the Act. This statement should encourage and support staff in meeting their
obligations under the FOI Act, to facilitate and promote public access to information,
promptly and at the lowest reasonable cost.
2. The Department continue to ensure that the objects of the Act are promoted, and the
functions and powers performed under the Act are exercised, as far as possible, to
facilitate and promote access to information, promptly and at the lowest reasonable
9 The Department’s submissions of 11 February 2019 also stated that the percentage of all requests
received by the Department during the 2017-2018 financial year and determined within the statutory
period was 35.55%.
10 The Department received 170 FOI requests in 2018-19 financial year compared with 276 FOI requests in
the 2017-18 financial year.
11
FOIREQ21/00019 016
cost by conducting general FOI training during the induction process for new
employees and refresher training for existing employees at least annually.
3. The Department develop or continue to develop policies and procedures for
providing administrative access to information and make those policies and
procedures publicly available, in order to demonstrate proactive disclosure through
the information publication scheme (Part II of the FOI Act).
4. The Department, within three months:
a. review and update its FOI processing guidance material to address the
findings in this investigation and provide clear guidance, which is consistent
with the objects of the Act, on:
i. search and retrieval timeliness
ii. steps to be taken by the FOI team where there is a delay in receiving the
documents from line areas which includes appropriate escalation
iii. keeping applicants updated on the progress of their requests where
delays are being experienced, and
iv. seeking extensions of time.
b. conduct an audit and report to the OAIC on:
i. its compliance with statutory timeframes under the FOI Act
ii. the completion and delivery of its centralised suite of online training
modules for SES decision makers.
12
FOIREQ21/00019 017
FOIREQ21/00019 018
On 31 January 2018, the Department wrote to the complainant acknowledging the receipt of
the FOI request and advised him that a decision was due by 26 February 2018.2
On 13 March 2018, the Department requested that the complainant:
… advise whether you be willing to exclude the following documents from the scope of your
FOI request:
· daily media summaries
· where an email is contained in a later email chain, exclude the earlier email as a duplicate.
On 14 March 2018, the complaint responded to the Department’s request, stating:
Where a relevant email is contained in a later email chain, I am willing to exclude the earlier
email as a duplicate.
I am not willing to exclude relevant daily media summaries because there is a wide public
interest in knowing when the Secretary/head of the APS was put on notice of corrupt conduct
engaged in by a senior public servant who is the head of an agency within the portfolio for
which the Secretary has oversight.
On 23 March 2018, the complainant sought IC review of the Department’s deemed access
refusal decision under s 54L of the FOI Act (OAIC reference: MR18/00212).3
On the same date, the OAIC conducted preliminary inquiries with the Department in relation
to the IC review under s 54V of the FOI Act.
On 27 March 2018, the Department provided a response to the OAIC’s preliminary inquiries
and advised that a decision in relation to the FOI request was expected by 20 April 2018.
On 20 April 2018, the Department provided the OAIC with an update on its processing of the
request and advised that ‘we are now proposing to notify a decision to the applicant by
Friday, 27 April 2018’.
On 23 April 2018, the complainant requested an update from the OAIC in relation to his IC
review as he had not yet received a decision from the Department. The complainant also
advised that he wished to make a complaint regarding:
… the Department’s repeated and ongoing failure to deal with FOI requests in accordance with
its legal obligations.4
On 27 April 2018, the Department issued its decision on the applicant’s FOI request,
identifying four documents (total ing 57 pages) within the scope of the request. The
Department provided access in full to two documents and refused access in full to the two
2 See www.righttoknow.org.au/request/pmc action against aps misconduc.
3 The FOI request was received by the Department on 27 January 2018. Therefore, a decision on the
request was to be provided no later than 26 February 2018 in accordance with s 15(5)(b) of the FOI Act.
4 OAIC reference CP18/01243.
2
FOIREQ21/00019 019
remaining documents. In making its decision, the Department relied on the documents
affecting enforcement of law and protection of public safety exemption (ss 37(1)(a) and
37(2)(a)), the deliberative processes exemption (s 47C), the certain operations of agencies
exemption (s 47E(d)) and the personal privacy exemption (s 47F) of the FOI Act.5
On 30 April 2018, the OAIC wrote to the complainant in relation to his IC review application,
requesting he advise if he wished to withdraw or continue with his IC review application in
light of the Department’s decision.
On the same date, the OAIC wrote to the complainant requesting he advise if he wished to
withdraw or continue with his FOI complaint in light of the Department providing its decision
and the relevant documents.
On 9 May 2018, the complainant withdrew his IC review application under s 54R of the FOI
Act. In relation to his complaint, the complainant also advised as fol ows:
The Department's FOI processing function appears to be characterised by a systemic disregard
for the law. An assessment of the FOI applications made of the Department by way of the
righttoknow website suggests that the Department acts illegally in respect of around 50% of
the applciations [sic] it receives. And so I'd like to pursue my complaint.
Here's a short sample of FOI requests that havent' [sic] been dealt with by the Department in
accordance with the requirements of the FOI Act (mainly the temporal requirements of
s.15(5)(b)):
https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/official_functions
https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/business_delegation
https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/year_on_year_percentage_pay_incr_3
https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/inquiry_into_sussan_ley_expenses
https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/letters_from_the_pm_to_the_queen
https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/letters_between_gough_whitlam_pm
https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/wikipedia_edits_made_by_public_s
https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/turnbulls_masses_of_evidence_doc
https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/group_certificatespayg_payment_s_4
https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/all_correspondence_between_pmc_a
https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/bill_priorities
https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/draft_open_government_partnershi
https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/grand_challenge_information
https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/letter_to_the_leader_of_the_oppo
https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/letters_from_prince_charles_and
5 See https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/pmc action against aps misconduc.
3
FOIREQ21/00019 020
https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/volume_of_email_to_ministers
https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/correspondence_procedures
https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/prime_ministerial_communications
https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/it_network_documentation_ipv4v6_23
https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/recent_appointments_to_the_nomin
https://twitter.com/NickEvershed/status/975922597337612288
https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/google_alerts_used_by_dpmc
On 31 May 2018, the OAIC notified the Department of the complaint and conducted
preliminary inquiries with the Department under s 72 of the FOI Act. A response was
requested from the Department by 14 June 2018.
On 14 June 2018, the Department contacted the OAIC requesting an extension of time until
19 June 2018 in which to provide a response to the OAIC’s preliminary inquiries.
On 15 June 2018, the OAIC granted the extension of time to the Department.
On the same date, the Department provided its response to the preliminary inquiries.
On 9 November 2018, the OAIC issued the Department with an investigation notice under
s 75 of the FOI Act. A response was requested by 7 December 2018.
On 27 November 2018, the Department sought clarification from the OAIC on a number of
issues and on 29 November 2018, the OAIC provided a response to the Department queries.
On 6 December 2018, the Department cal ed the OAIC to advise that there are confidential
third parties referred to in the submissions and information the Department is providing and
that it may not be possible to separate them given the nature of the submissions and
information. The Department further advised that submissions in response to Parts 1 and 3
would be provided the next day and a response to Part 3 was expected to be provided by 14
to 17 December 2018.
On 7 December 2018, the Department advised that they were:
… urgently finalising our response to the majority of Part 1 and the entirety of Part 3, with a
view to providing them to you on Monday. ...
On 10 December 2018, the Department provided confidential submissions and three
attachments and advised:
… please find attached the Department’s response to the OAIC’S Investigation Notice – it
covers the majority of Part 1 and the entirety of Part 3. We are preparing the Department’s
response to Part 2 and will provide this to you shortly.
4
FOIREQ21/00019 021
On 11 December 2018, the OAIC acknowledged receipt of the Department’s email and on the
same date, the Department advised that:
We are also aiming to provide you with the Department’s response to Part 2 by close of
business, 21 December 2018.
On 21 December 2018, the Department contacted the OAIC, advising:
… Unfortunately we are unlikely to be in a position to provide our response to you today,
however we are aiming to be able to provide them to you on Monday 24 December 2018. We
will also touch base with you on Monday to keep you updated.
On 3 January 2019, the Department cal ed the OAIC to advise that the submissions were with
the Assistant Secretary who was currently on leave and that a further update would be
provided the next week.
On 8 January 2019, the Department contacted the OAIC advising:
… the Department is in the process of finalising Part 1(d) and Part 2 of its Complaint Response
by COB 18 January 2019. I appreciate the extensions of time given to the Department to date
for this matter. Grateful if you can confirm whether the OAIC will agree to this timeframe.
On the same date, the OAIC agreed to the extension of time requested by the Department.
On 21 January 2019, the Department cal ed the OAIC advising that the outstanding
information would be provided by the end of the day.
On the same date, the Department wrote to the OAIC stating:
We’re having some issues with our positional FOI mailbox this evening – I am hoping that the
email I sent you this evening in relation to the Department’s Response to CP18/01243 (there are
some large attachments) has reached. If not, I will retry in the morning.
On 22 January 2019, the OAIC confirmed that it had not received any emails from the
Department in relation to this complaint matter.
On 23 January 2019, the OAIC called and left a voice mail message advising that the response
had not been received and requesting an update.
On 29 January 2019, the Department contacted the OAIC stating:
My apologies for the delay in responding to you, I’ve been unexpectedly out of the office (and
my out of office message was not on).
I return tomorrow but I have made enquiries with my Team. Will revert to you shortly.
5
FOIREQ21/00019 022
On 1 February 2019, the OAIC cal ed the Department requesting an update on the
outstanding material, and on the same date, the Department contacted the OAIC stating:
As discussed, we are urgently finalising the Department’s submissions and I hope to be in a
position to provide these to you early next week (4 February 2019 if possible). I will give you a
call to give you an update early on Monday morning with how we are progressing.
On 5 February 2019, the OAIC wrote to the Department requesting an update on progress of
the submissions.
On 6 February 2019, the Department responded advising:
… I have been in and out of meetings today. We are urgently finalising our submissions and I
hope to provide them to you by 8 February 2019.
On 7 February 2019, the OAIC cal ed the Department and left a voice message requesting an
update on the outstanding submissions.
On 12 February 2019, the Department provided the final part of its submissions and one
attachment.
On 29 March 2019, the complainant lodged an FOI request with the OAIC for access to:
… a copy of any submissions provided to the OAIC by the DPMC in relation to my complaint.6
On 26 April 2019, the authorised decision maker issued their decision to the complainant.
The decision maker identified two documents within the scope of the FOI request and
refused access in ful . The decision maker relied on the certain operations of agencies
exemption (s 47E(d)) of the FOI Act.
6 OAIC reference: FOIREQ19/00078.
6
