PO Box 7820 Canberra BC ACT 2610
17 May 2023
Our reference: LEX 73077
Me (Right to Know)
By email: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx
Dear Me
Freedom of Information Request - Internal Review Decision
I refer to your request for internal review of the Freedom of Information (FOI) decision made
by an authorised decision maker of Services Australia (the Agency) under the
Freedom of
Information Act 1982 (FOI Act) on 17 March 2023 (LEX 71589) (the original decision).
Background
On 31 January 2023, you made a revised request under the FOI Act for the following
documents:
There are amendments to s 67CC(2) of the A New Tax System (Family Assistance)
(Administration) Act 1999, contained in the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment
(Cheaper Childcare) Act 2022. In particular, the amendment that adds ‘claimant’ to s
67CC(2).
For that amendment, please produce:
1. The earliest in time document in Services Australia’s possession that relates
directly to the above amendment
2. The latest in time document, but on or before 26 September 2022, in Services
Australia’s possession that relates directly to the above amendment
3. A document in Services Australia’s possession that describes the origin of the
idea to pursue the amendment.
On 17 March 2023, the decision maker decided to:
• grant you
full access to 1 document (Document 3), and
• grant you
part access to 2 documents (Documents 1 and 2) with some of the content
removed
On 17 April 2023, you sought internal review of the original decision, stating:
I am writing to request an internal review of Services Australia's handling of my FOI
request 'Reason for amendments to s 67CC(2)'.
I understand that my request for internal review is within time. In the alternative, I
request my internal review be considered out of time, on the basis that it is more
efficient for all parties than if I were to file a new request on the grounds below.
Information about who is emailing whom is relevant and necessary context to the
information in the body of the emails.
I seek review of the decision to redact any/all information in the 'from', 'to', 'cc', and
'bcc' fields of all released emails, excluding information redacted on the basis of s 22.
To the extent information is redacted under s 47E(d), I submit there is no requirement
to redact the email domain (e.g., '@servicesaustralia.gov.au' or similar). Releasing
the domain wil not reveal the positional mailbox, therefore, there is no lawful basis to
redact the information. I submit the domains must be released.
To the extent information is redacted under s 47F(1), I infer these are names of EL
and/or SES staff (cf 'agency junior staff details redacted under section 22 (out of
scope)').
It is well established that SES names are not exempt from disclosure under the FOI
Act, least of all solely on the basis that an SES' name is their personal information. In
part, this is because SES are meant to be subject to a higher level of accountability.
Accountability is literally part of their job description; if they do not want their names
released, they are free to become junior staff or resign. I submit that names of SES
must be released.
The names of EL staff are a grey area. My submission is they must be released,
along with the SES names. However, I would accept a decision where only their first
name was released (e.g., 'joe.[redacted]@servicesaustralia.gov.au'). This sufficiently
protects their privacy and furthers the public interest by providing the necessary
context to the bodies of the emails.
Summary of my internal review decision
Having considered the material before me, I have decided to affirm the original decision. That
is, I have decided to:
• grant you
full access to 1 document (Document 3), and
• grant you
part access to 2 documents (Documents 1 and 2) with some of the content
removed.
I have decided that certain documents, or parts of documents, you have requested are exempt
under the FOI Act, as they include:
• personal information of another person, the disclosure of which would be
unreasonable and contrary to the public interest, and
• operational information, the disclosure of which would be contrary to the public
interest and have a serious or significant effect on the Agency’s ability to conduct its
operations efficiently and properly.
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.
How we wil send your documents to you
The documents are attached.
You can ask for a review of our decision
If you disagree with any part of the decision you can ask for a review by the Office of the
Australian Information Commissioner. 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
Amanda
Authorised FOI Decision Maker
Freedom of Information Team
FOI and Ombudsman Branch | Legal Services Division
Services Australia
REASONS FOR DECISION
What you requested
On 25 January 2023 you wrote to the Agency to make a FOI request. On 31 January 2023 you
revised this request in the following terms:
There are amendments to s 67CC(2) of the A New Tax System (Family Assistance)
(Administration) Act 1999, contained in the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment
(Cheaper Childcare) Act 2022. In particular, the amendment that adds ‘claimant’ to s
67CC(2).
For that amendment, please produce:
1. The earliest in time document in Services Australia’s possession that relates
directly to the above amendment
2. The latest in time document, but on or before 26 September 2022, in Services
Australia’s possession that relates directly to the above amendment
3. A document in Services Australia’s possession that describes the origin of the
idea to pursue the amendment.
On 17 March 2023, the Agency provided you with the original FOI access decision, to
• grant you
full access to 1 document (Document 3), and
• grant you
part access to 2 documents (Documents 1 and 2) with some of the content
removed
Your request for internal review
In your correspondence to the Agency dated 17 April 2023, and received by the Agency on the
same day, you requested an internal review of the original decision. You submit ed the
following reasons for seeking internal review:
I am writing to request an internal review of Services Australia's handling of my FOI
request 'Reason for amendments to s 67CC(2)'.
I understand that my request for internal review is within time. In the alternative, I
request my internal review be considered out of time, on the basis that it is more
efficient for all parties than if I were to file a new request on the grounds below.
Information about who is emailing whom is relevant and necessary context to the
information in the body of the emails.
I seek review of the decision to redact any/all information in the 'from', 'to', 'cc', and
'bcc' fields of all released emails, excluding information redacted on the basis of s 22.
To the extent information is redacted under s 47E(d), I submit there is no requirement
to redact the email domain (e.g., '@servicesaustralia.gov.au' or similar). Releasing
the domain wil not reveal the positional mailbox, therefore, there is no lawful basis to
redact the information. I submit the domains must be released.
PAGE 6 OF 13
To the extent information is redacted under s 47F(1), I infer these are names of EL
and/or SES staff (cf 'agency junior staff details redacted under section 22 (out of
scope)').
It is well established that SES names are not exempt from disclosure under the FOI
Act, least of all solely on the basis that an SES' name is their personal information. In
part, this is because SES are meant to be subject to a higher level of accountability.
Accountability is literally part of their job description; if they do not want their names
released, they are free to become junior staff or resign. I submit that names of SES
must be released.
The names of EL staff are a grey area. My submission is they must be released,
along with the SES names. However, I would accept a decision where only their first
name was released (e.g., 'joe.[redacted]@servicesaustralia.gov.au'). This sufficiently
protects their privacy and furthers the public interest by providing the necessary
context to the bodies of the emails.
What I took into account
In reaching my decision I took into account:
• your original request dated 25 January 2023
• Your revised request dated 31 January 2023
• the original decision dated 17 March 2023
• your request for internal review dated 17 April 2023
• documents falling within the scope of your request
• whether the release of material would be in the public interest
• consultations with Agency officers about:
o the nature of the documents
o the Agency's operating environment and functions
• consultation with the Department of Education in relation to documents which contain
information concerning that Department and its staff
• guidelines issued by the Australian Information Commissioner under section 93A of the
FOI Act (Guidelines), and
• the FOI Act.
Reasons for my decisions
I am authorised to make decisions under section 23(1) of the FOI Act, including internal review
decisions under section 54C of the FOI Act.
PAGE 7 OF 13
I have decided certain parts of the documents you requested are exempt under the FOI Act.
My findings of fact and reasons for deciding that the exemption applies to the documents are
discussed below.
Section 47F - Unreasonable disclosure of personal information
I have considered your internal review request, in which you indicated that you had inferred
that, to the extent information had been redacted under section 47F(1) of the FOI Act, this
related to the names of EL and/or SES staff (cf 'agency junior staff details redacted under
section 22 (out of scope)').
However, noting that section 22 redactions were only applied to the details of junior staff
of
the Agency, I confirm that the section 47F(1) redactions in the documents provided to you
related to the personal information of individuals that are not employees of the Agency
(specifically the names and email addresses of Department of Education employees).
I have decided not to release the names and contact details of these individuals to you as I
am of the view that this would amount to an unreasonable disclosure of personal information.
Accordingly, I have applied the conditional exemption in section 47F(1) of the FOI Act to
parts of Documents 1 and 2.
This section of the FOI Act allows the Agency to redact material from a document if its
disclosure would result in the unreasonable disclosure of personal information about another
person.
Personal information is information or an opinion about an identified individual, or an
individual who is reasonably identifiable. It can include a person's name, address, telephone
number and financial information. I am satisfied the documents contain personal information
relating to Department of Education employees, including their names and contact details.
Having carefully reviewed the documents in question, I consider disclosure of the personal
information of Department of Education staff, such as names and contact details, would be
unreasonable because:
• you do not have the consent from these individuals to the release of their personal
information
• the information is private and not freely available in full or in part from publicly
accessible sources
• the identity of the individuals concerned are readily apparent or could be easily
ascertained, and
• revealing this information is likely to pose a real and unacceptable risk of rendering
those individuals vulnerable to threats and unauthorised contact from members of the
public, which could jeopardise their physical safety and compromise their mental
health.
For the reasons outlined above, I am satisfied disclosure of the third party personal information
would be unreasonable.
Public interest considerations
Access to conditionally exempt material must be given unless I am satisfied it would not be in
the public interest to do so. Whilst disclosure of the material would generally promote the
PAGE 8 OF 13
objects of the FOI Act, I am of the view that the factors against disclosure outweigh this. In
my opinion, the disclosure of Department of Education employee details in this matter would
prejudice the individuals’ right to privacy, may adversely affect the individuals’ interests
including prejudicing their personal safety, and would prejudice the Department of
Education’s ability to attract and retain staff if personal details were to be routinely disclosed
through FOI.
As such, I find the public interest in disclosing the material is outweighed by the public interest
against 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.
Section 47E(d) - Operations of the Agency
I have considered your internal review request with respect to the positional mailbox
information redacted under section 47E(d) of the FOI Act.
I have applied the conditional exemption in section 47E(d) of the FOI Act to Documents 1 and
2.
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 5.20 of the Guidelines provides:
The term ‘substantial adverse effect’ broadly means ‘an adverse effect which is
sufficiently serious or significant to cause concern to a properly concerned reasonable
person’. The word ‘substantial’, taken in the context of substantial loss or damage, has
been interpreted as ‘loss or damage that is, in the circumstances, real or of substance
and not insubstantial or nominal’.
Further, in
Re James and Australian National University (1984) 6 ALD 687 the phrase ‘conduct
of operations’ was interpreted to extend ‘to the way in which an agency discharges or performs
any of its functions.’
Internal positional mailboxes
I have applied the exemption in section 47E(d) of the FOI Act to parts of Documents 1 and 2
as they contain internal Agency contact information for positional mailboxes.
The Agency’s purpose is to provide high-quality government services and payments to
Australians. It is a large, public facing, government organisation with many points of contact
designed to facilitate its purpose. The Agency has established channels of communication for
customers and members of the public, which have been put in place to ensure the effective
management of the significant volume of communication received.
Having regard to the above, I am satisfied this information is relevant to the Agency’s
operations. Moreover, releasing this information would have a substantial adverse effect on
those operations.
Specifically, releasing positional email addresses in Documents 1 and 2 would have a
substantial adverse effect on the proper and efficient conduct of the operations of Services
Australia, for the following reasons:
PAGE 9 OF 13
• these details are not in the public domain, and are intended to be used to facilitate
confidential and prompt communications within the Agency
• given the dedicated contact points currently available to customers and members of
the public, if other contact details of identified teams were released to the world at-
large, there would be a potential increase in the workloads for those teams, therefore
reducing the efficiency of the Agency. Customers would not be contacting the most
appropriate service area, which may compromise communication within the Agency,
and would require staff to be diverted from their duties in order to respond to or redirect
enquiries
• from time to time, positional email addresses are deleted or changed due to operational
requirements, and if a member of the public sends an email to such an address, there
is a high probability that the email would not be actioned. This may result in services
not being administered correctly, or administered at all, and
• providing direct contact details may result in incorrect advice or inconsistent service
being provided by the Agency and would also inhibit the management of data and
undermine the Agency’s efforts to provide services as efficiently and effectively as
possible.
That is, the Agency has established procedures for managing specific types of customer
interactions. Communication misdirected due to the disclosure of internal positional email
addresses wil likely lead to these communications being lost, duplicated or double-handled on
account of it not being directed to the most appropriate team. When discussing the interactions
that number in the hundreds of mil ions, diverting people from correct channels cannot be
appropriately categorised as insubstantial or nominal.
While I have no reason to believe you would misuse the exempt material in any way, the FOI
Act does not control or restrict use or dissemination of the information once released in
response to an FOI request, so I must consider actions any member of the public might take
once the information enters the public domain.
For reasons detailed above, I am satisfied that positional mailbox addresses in full are
conditionally exempt under section 47E(d) of the FOI Act.
Public interest considerations
Access to conditionally exempt material must be given unless I am satisfied it would not be in
the public interest to do so. I consider the disclosure of the material would promote the objects
of the FOI Act to a limited extent. On the other hand, I also consider disclosure would increase
the risk of unauthorised access to information held by the Agency and individuals
circumventing the Agency’s established communication channels for their own benefit, which
would in turn significantly prejudice the Agency’s ability to promptly and effectively deliver
services to the Australian public. Therefore, I am of the view that disclosure of the conditionally
exempt material is not, on balance, in the public interest.
Summary of my decision
I have decided to:
• grant you
full access to 1 document (Document 3) and
PAGE 10 OF 13
• grant you
part access to 2 documents (Documents 1 and 2) with some of the content
removed
PAGE 11 OF 13
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 section 54L of the FOI Act, you can
apply for a review of an FOI decision by contacting the Office of the Australian Commissioner.
Applying for external review by the Australian Information Commissioner
If you do not agree with the internal review decision, you can ask 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 'Merits 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 decision on your FOI request
• Include your contact details
• Set out your reasons for objecting to the agency's decision.
PAGE 12 OF 13
Complaints to the Australian Information Commissioner and Commonwealth
Ombudsman
Australian Information Commissioner
You may complain to the Australian 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 Australian Information
Commissioner must be made in writing. The Australian Information Commissioner's contact
details are:
Telephone: 1300 363 992
Website: www.oaic.gov.au
Commonwealth Ombudsman
You may also complain to the Commonwealth 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 Commonwealth Ombudsman may be
made in person, by telephone or in writing. The Commonwealth 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 13 OF 13
