Dear Department of Defence,

I make this request under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth).

I seek access to the following documents:

Contractual Arrangements

The current head contract (and any variations or schedules) between the Department of Defence and Toll Transitions Pty Ltd for the provision of Defence member relocation and removal services.

In particular, I seek any schedules, annexures, or statements of work that set out:

Service standards or key performance indicators (KPIs),

Complaints-handling and dispute-resolution obligations, and

Responsibilities of Toll in relation to subcontracted removalists.

Performance and Compliance

The most recent 12 months of:

Departmental audits, reviews, or performance reports assessing Toll’s compliance with the above service standards,

Any summary reports provided by Toll to Defence under contractual reporting obligations.

Scope and exclusions:

I do not seek access to personal information of Defence members or private individuals.

I do not seek routine correspondence or duplicate copies of the same document.

I accept that commercially sensitive financial details (such as unit pricing) may be redacted under s 47 of the Act, provided the remainder of the contract and KPIs are released.

I am an ADF member directly affected by the operation of this contract and seek these documents to better understand the contractual standards and oversight mechanisms in place.

Please process this request in accordance with the Act. Should you consider that parts of this request are too broad, I am willing to discuss narrowing the scope.

Yours sincerely,

J

Dear FOI Case Management,

Thank you for your letter of 29 September 2025 regarding FOI 405/25/26.

I note Defence’s view that my request may constitute a “practical refusal reason” under s 24AA of the FOI Act. I wish to take part in the consultation process under s 24AB, and I do not withdraw my request.

In order to revise the scope meaningfully, I ask that Defence provide a schedule or index of the 108 documents identified. Without such an index, it is not possible to identify which documents are of most immediate public interest. The FOI Guidelines (Part 3, under s 24AB) emphasise that agencies must take reasonable steps to assist applicants to revise requests.

I note Defence’s estimate that more than 800 pages of contracts, schedules, annexures and performance reports fall within scope. The sheer volume of documentation required to manage the Toll contract highlights why so many difficulties are experienced by ADF members in practice. There is a strong public interest in transparency of these arrangements. If these documents were released, they may help prompt a wider public discussion of Toll’s relationship with Defence and the adequacy of oversight.

I therefore ask Defence to provide:

An index of the documents identified; and

An indication of whether they can be grouped (e.g. head contract, KPI schedules, complaints-handling procedures, KPI reports, audits).

Once this is available, I will refine my request accordingly.

Yours sincerely,

J

Dear Department of Defence,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Department of Defence's handling of my FOI request 'Contract and Performance Information Relating to Toll Transitions'.

Date: 19 October 2025

Dear Director,

Request for Internal Review – s 54, FOI Act 1982
I seek internal review of the decision dated 16 October 2025 refusing access under s 24A(1) in FOI 405/25/26.

Summary of the decision under review

The decision refuses access to “an index or schedule” of documents previously identified during consultation, on the basis that such an index does not exist, and that the Department is not required to create a new document. The decision states that searches in the Defence records management system (Objective) did not locate a pre-existing index.

Grounds for review
1. Misapplication of s 24A(1): the requested document exists or can be produced under s 17.
Defence’s own consultation notice recorded ~108 documents (≈800+ pages) within scope of my original request. Arriving at that figure necessarily implies the existence of a record (e.g., search results, hit list, tracking spreadsheet, email, or export). A “document” is defined broadly in s 4(1). Even if a stand-alone index file was not saved, s 17 requires an agency to produce a written document by retrieving/collating stored information with equipment ordinarily available. Generating a simple list/export from Objective falls squarely within s 17.

2. Inadequate demonstration of “all reasonable steps” (s 24A) in the reasons.
OAIC guidance requires a thorough, systematic search and reasons that explain what was searched and how. The decision refers only to Objective, without describing search terms, consulted business areas (e.g., SEG contract management), or examination of FOI processing artefacts used to count the 108 documents. On the face of the reasons, “all reasonable steps” is not established.

3. Incorrect reliance on “no duty to create” instead of applying s 17 or, if necessary, s 24.
I did not ask Defence to compose new content; I requested the schedule already implied by processing. OAIC now states that while agencies need not create new documents, they should consult about effective access and (importantly) can and should produce a document from held data where appropriate. If Defence considers producing a schedule would cause a substantial and unreasonable diversion of resources, the correct pathway is s 24 with s 24AB consultation—not s 24A.

What I seek on internal review
• Set aside the s 24A refusal and release a schedule listing the documents identified during processing of FOI 405/25/26.
• At a minimum: Objective ID, Title/Description, Date, Business Area/Owner, and a broad category (e.g., head contract/variation, KPI schedule/report, complaints/dispute procedures, audit/review).
• If Defence considers producing the schedule would engage s 24, please commence practical-refusal consultation under s 24AB and provide an estimate and suggested narrowing.

Clarifications / alternative resolution

To assist, I am content with a basic/abbreviated schedule (fields above) and I do not seek personal information or unit pricing/commercial-in-confidence details in the schedule.

Please acknowledge receipt of this internal review request. I am available to discuss practical ways to minimise processing effort and achieve an efficient outcome.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: http://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/co...

Yours faithfully,

J