Finance AoG decisions re: ASIC (unsuccessful)
Dear Department of Finance,
For all unsuccessful (note ‘un’) act of grace applications made against ASIC for the period 1 July 2021 - 30 June 2023, I request:
- A copy of the record entered in the SFC database regarding the application (see FOI 22/119 Document 1)
- Where the application was for more than $100,000 (including more than $500,000), the Ministerial Submission regarding the application
- Where the application was for under $100,000, the Minute that contains the reasons for refusal (for the avoidance of doubt, this includes any sort of briefing covered by the policy disclosed under 22/119. It may simply be an email)
- Where the final decision came after a reconsideration by the Ombudsman or Federal Court, a copy of the final reasons for decision given by the Ombudsman or Federal Court.
This request includes:
- Work-related personal information of Finance and ASIC SES (e.g., name, signature block details)
- Work-related personal information of SES-equivalent staff in a Minister's office (if applicable)
- The domain of any email addresses in documents in scope
This request excludes:
- Personal information of non-SES staff
- Personal information of third parties (that is, this personal information is excluded under s 22, not s 47F)
Yours faithfully,
Me
Thank you for your email, which has been forwarded to the Department’s FOI
Team for their consideration. A member of the FOI Team will respond to
your email in the next couple of days.
Kind regards
FOI Coordinator
OFFICIAL
Dear Sir
Freedom of Information Request – FOI 23-24/034
Thank you for your email to the Department of Finance (Finance) requesting
access to the documents under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI
Act) as contained in the attached.
Information is publicly available
During the meeting held on 23 June 2023 for FOI22-23/053, you explained
that you are seeking information on the characteristics of circumstances
in which a claim for an Act of Grace payment related to ASIC was deemed
successful. Finance has previously provided to you publicly available
information on how to make an Act of Grace application, and how requests
are processed. You have also been provided documents related to ASIC
specific claims under your previous requests FOI 22-23/053 and FOI
23-24/027.
The Act of Grace mechanism is permissive and does not obligate a decision
maker to approve a payment for any reason. Finance is unable to begin
assessing whether it may be appropriate to make a payment to an applicant
because of special circumstances until a complete application has been
received.
You may make an application for an act of grace or waiver of debt at any
time. The relevant form and further information is on the Finance website
at
[1]https://www.finance.gov.au/individuals/a....
Request for assistance
The current scope of your request captures a large volume of records
relating to approximately 580 database entries. The records are stored
within the SFC database and Finance is not able to produce exports of the
information you have requested using ordinarily available computers or
other equipment (including software). The documents provided to you in
response to your request in FOI 23-24/027 were from screenshots of the
relevant entries in the system, and therefore the processing of your
request in its current form is likely to result in a formal request
consultation process as it would substantially and unreasonably divert the
resources of Finance.
Finance does not hold documents relevant to the remaining parts of your
request in the form of Ministerial Submissions and reasons by the
Commonwealth Ombudsman or Federal Court. As such, we invite you to
withdraw these portions of the request.
We kindly ask that you reply this email by providing further details
regarding the type of documents that you are seeking or withdrawing your
request. You could narrow the scope of your request by reducing the number
of records within scope such as by only seeking documents related to the
five most recent decisions within scope of your request.
Please note that if we do not receive a response from you, we are required
under the FOI Act to expend additional resources to process your request.
We appreciate your assistance in this matter.
General FOI matters
Your request was received by Finance on Friday 29 September 2023. The
statutory period for processing your request commences from the day after
Finance received your request and a decision is due on Monday 30 October
2023.
The processing period may be extended if we need to consult third parties,
impose a charge or for other reasons. We will advise you if this happens.
Liability to pay a charge
You will be notified of any charges in relation to your request as soon as
possible, before we process any requested documents or impose a final
charge.
Publication
As required by the FOI Act, any documents provided to you under the FOI
Act will be published on our [2]disclosure log, unless an exemption
applies or the documents are characterised as containing personal
information. Documents will be published the next working day after they
are released to you.
Policy to exclude junior officer contact details, signatures and mobile
phone numbers
Finance has adopted a policy to generally exclude from any documents
released under FOI, the names and contact details of junior staff (non-SES
officers) and staff employed under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act
1984 (adviser level and below). Finance has also adopted a policy to
exclude signatures and mobile phone numbers from any documents released
under FOI (unless publicly available). Finance’s preference is to reach
agreement with FOI applicants to exclude these details from the scope of
the request. Where there is no objection, the names and contact details of
junior officers, as well as any signatures and mobile phone numbers
appearing in identified documents, will be redacted under section 22 of
the FOI Act on the basis that these details are irrelevant to the request.
Please contact the FOI Team on the below contact details if you wish to
discuss your request.
Kind regards
FOI Officer | Legal and Assurance Branch
Business Enabling Services
Department of Finance
A: One Canberra Avenue, Forrest ACT 2603
Classification: OFFICIAL
Classified by: [email address] on: 13/10/2023 5:08:44 PM
References
Visible links
1. https://www.finance.gov.au/individuals/a...
2. https://www.finance.gov.au/about-us/free...
Dear FOI Requests,
Thanks for your email
The minsubs and/or minutes are the part of the request that I think would be most helpful
The AoG process set out in the documents disclosed by the earlier FOI require Finance to produce a minute and/or minsub in the relevant circumstances (?). If there are 580 database entries, there should be 580 such documents? Or less than 580, if one minute/minsub covers multiple applications / database entries. But still some documents on these points?
Can you confirm that Finance holds no court or tribunal decisions because none of the applications went to court or the AAT?
If SFC has no export function at all, I'll take your word for it. But that is very odd (who builds a database with no export function!)
Yours sincerely,
Me
Thank you for your email, which has been forwarded to the Department’s FOI
Team for their consideration. A member of the FOI Team will respond to
your email in the next couple of days.
Kind regards
FOI Coordinator
OFFICIAL
Dear Me,
In relation to your last email please see responses below.
1. “The minsubs and/or minutes are the part of the request that I think
would be most helpful.
The AoG process set out in the documents disclosed by the earlier FOI
require Finance to produce a minute and/or minsub in the relevant
circumstances (?).
If there are 580 database entries, there should be 580 such documents? Or
less than 580, if one minute/minsub covers multiple applications /
database entries. But still some documents on these points?”
The number of documents that exist for each record is unknown and will
vary. There may be several documents for one decision or one document
containing several decisions. As noted in the previous email we suggest
you narrow the scope to a small number of decisions. Please note that if
any material is released it may be subject to third party consultation and
is likely to contain exempt and conditionally exempt information.
2. “Can you confirm that Finance holds no court or tribunal decisions
because none of the applications went to court or the AAT?”
We can confirm that Finance does not hold court or tribunal decisions
related Acts of Grace claims where ASIC is the relevant NCE, for the
period specified in your request.
Please provide a response to this email by COB Friday 20th of October 2023
with a reduced scope to allow processing of your request.
Many thanks
FOI Team
Dear FOI Requests,
Thanks for your reply
The earlier email said there were no minsubs. I am inferring that Finance was able to positively confirm this, and therefore, that minsubs are not part of the category 'The number of documents that exist for each record is unknown and will vary.' If my inference is incorrect, please advise.
Assuming my inference is correct, I would propose to narrow my scope to the 10 most recent decisions before 30 June 2023, where the decision:
- is not substantially the same as another decision in the set of 10 (that is, the facts underlying each decision are not similar), and
- resulted in the production of a minute, or other document containing substantive reasons for decision
I note that personal information of third parties is excluded from the scope of my request. It should be redacted under s 22. Once it is redacted, the remaining 'personal information' is anonymous, and therefore ceases to be personal information. As a result, s 47F will not arise
Yours sincerely,
Me
Thank you for your email, which has been forwarded to the Department’s FOI
Team for their consideration. A member of the FOI Team will respond to
your email in the next couple of days.
Kind regards
FOI Coordinator
Thank you for your email, which has been forwarded to the Department’s FOI
Team for their consideration. A member of the FOI Team will respond to
your email in the next couple of days.
Kind regards
FOI Coordinator
OFFICIAL
Dear Sir or Madam
To enable Finance to respond to your request please provide the FOI reference number that would have been emailed to you in the acknowledgement email.
Once we have this information, we will be able to provide a response to your email.
Kind regards
FOI Team
Dear FOI Requests,
I think it is FOI 23-24/034
Following on from an email to DoF on 19 October 2023 (it should have come from the same email address)
Yours sincerely,
Me
Thank you for your email, which has been forwarded to the Department’s FOI
Team for their consideration. A member of the FOI Team will respond to
your email in the next couple of days.
Kind regards
FOI Coordinator
OFFICIAL
Dear Sir or Madam
Please see attached letter from Finance with a due date of Wednesday 30th November 2023.
Kind regards
FOI Team
Dear FOI Requests,
Ah ok. Thanks
I understand the charge decision is pending review at the OAIC MR23/01336.
Is this correct:
- the underlying request is FOI 23/24 - 027
- the charge decision is FOI 23/24 - 034
?
Yours sincerely,
Me
Thank you for your email, which has been forwarded to the Department’s FOI
Team for their consideration. A member of the FOI Team will respond to
your email in the next couple of days.
Kind regards
FOI Coordinator
OFFICIAL
Good afternoon
The matter with the reference FOI 23-24/027 was finalised 29th September 2023 when documents were provided to you.
The current matter with reference FOI 23-24/034 is paused until we have your response to the preliminary charges letter, or the 30-day period has passed.
You have 30 days from the date of the letter to undertake one of the below actions:
• agree to pay the charge indicated;
• contend that the charge has been wrongly assessed, or should be reduced or not imposed (you should provide full reasons for your contention); or
• withdraw your request.
We are not aware of any OAIC reviews related to this or your previous 2 requests and internal review. Usually, Finance is not informed if there is a review submitted to the OAIC until they have started the process of that review. At that time, we will communicate with the OAIC regarding any matters under review.
Many thanks
FOI Team
Dear FOI Requests,
Thanks for the clarification
I believe the charge review request to OAIC is MR23/01336.
Can you please confirm DoF will not close the request if the deadline passes and you have not heard yet from OAIC?
Yours sincerely,
Me
Thank you for your email, which has been forwarded to the Department’s FOI
Team for their consideration. A member of the FOI Team will respond to
your email in the next couple of days.
Kind regards
FOI Coordinator
OFFICIAL
Dear Me
As per the below email and previous letter, you have three options:
• agree to pay the charge indicated;
• contend that the charge has been wrongly assessed, or should be reduced
or not imposed (you should provide full reasons for your contention); or
• withdraw your request.
As mentioned previously, we have not been informed by the OAIC of a review
related to this matter and once we have this information, we will provide
a response to the OAIC as per our usual review process.
Please see the FOI Guidelines in relation to preliminary charges for
further information - available here: [1]Part 4: Charges for providing
access | OAIC
Please see excerpt below:
Disputing a preliminary estimate of a charge
4.57 The assessment notice must also inform applicants that they can still
contest the preliminary costs assessment even if they have paid (an option
that allows processing of the FOI request to continue while the charge is
being contested). The preliminary assessment notice is not itself a
reviewable decision. To contest the preliminary costs assessment an
applicant must, within 30 days, apply in writing to the agency or minister
for the charge to be corrected, reduced or not imposed (s 29(1)(f)(ii).
After receiving the applicant’s written application, the agency or
minister has a discretion to reduce or not impose the charge or to
maintain the charge. The agency or minister must consider the applicant’s
views and notify the applicant about its final decision on the amount of
charge payable within 30 days (s 29(6)). This is a reviewable decision.
Many thanks
FOI Team
Dear FOI Requests,
Ok
Can I please request an extension until 15 December 2023
Yours sincerely,
Me
Thank you for your email, which has been forwarded to the Department’s FOI
Team for their consideration. A member of the FOI Team will respond to
your email in the next couple of days.
Kind regards
FOI Coordinator
OFFICIAL
Dear Me
Thank you for your email.
Finance can provide you with an extension until 15 December to do one of the following actions:
• agree to pay the charge indicated;
• contend that the charge has been wrongly assessed, or should be reduced or not imposed (you should provide full reasons for your contention); or
• withdraw your request.
Please note that if a response is not provided, Finance will deem the matter as withdrawn under subsection 29(1)(g) of the Freedom of Information Act 1982.
Kind regards
FOI Team
Dear FOI Requests,
May I please contest the charge. Para references to IC guideline.
[4.4] Lowest reasonable cost involves not imposing the charge, as (1) it costs more to implement the charge than DoF will receive; and, (2) it costs more to argue about than DoF will receive. Noting that DoF's costs include the costs of responding to an IC review [4.5]
[4.5] The onus is on DoF to prove the charge is justified. The DoF is unlikely to prove to the IC the charge is justified, even if the charge is, as a matter of actual fact, justified
[4.6] I have already substantially narrowed the request. Imposing a charge is intentionally or recklessly obstructionist to the objects of the FOI Act
[4.19] DoF needs to justify not exercising their discretion to not impose a charge, and has not done so. Rather, the decision amounts to 'we can impose a charge, and so we will'
[4.105] The documents are in the public interest, because ASIC is excluded from the CDDA scheme with not justification, and there is no specific guidance as to when an AoG claim against ASIC (via DoF) may or may not be successful. Especially in the context of a current Senate inquiry into ASIC enforcement, and ASIC's competence otherwise being a matter of public debate at the moment [4.109]
Yours sincerely,
Me
Thank you for your email, which has been forwarded to the Department’s FOI
Team for their consideration. A member of the FOI Team will respond to
your email in the next couple of days.
Kind regards
FOI Coordinator
OFFICIAL
Dear Me,
We are writing to notify you that Finance will not be in a position to
finalise a decision in relation to your FOI request by the current due
date of 3 January 2023 due to the unforeseen unavailability of the
Decision Maker.
Section 15AA of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 provides that an
applicant can consent to an extension of time up to 30 calendar days.
Finance seeks your agreement to extend the processing period by 14 days
with a new due date Wednesday 17 January 2023.
If you consent to the extension, Finance will notify the Office of the
Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) of the extension, which is part
of Finance’s reporting requirements.
We kindly ask that you reply by either:
1. Consenting to an extension of time to 17 January 2023; or
2. Consenting to an extension of time for a date less than that requested
by Finance; or
3. Refusing to grant an extension of time.
We kindly seek your response by COB 22 December 2023.
If you would like to discuss this email, or your matter more generally,
please contact the FOI Team.
Kind regards
FOI Officer | Legal and Assurance Branch
Business Enabling Services
Department of Finance
A: One Canberra Avenue, Forrest ACT 2603
Dear FOI Requests,
Apologies for the delayed reply - extension of time is ok
Yours sincerely,
Me
Thank you for your email, which has been forwarded to the Department’s FOI
Team for their consideration. A member of the FOI Team will respond to
your email in the next couple of days.
Kind regards
FOI Coordinator
OFFICIAL
Dear Me,
Please see attached a charges contention decision letter in relation to
your FOI request (our reference FOI 23-24/034).
Kind regards
FOI Officer | Legal and Assurance Branch
Business Enabling Services
Department of Finance
A: One Canberra Avenue, Forrest ACT 2603
Dear Meagan,
Thank you
FOI: could you please advise the new decision due date?
Yours sincerely,
Me
Thank you for your email, which has been forwarded to the Department’s FOI
Team for their consideration. A member of the FOI Team will respond to
your email in the next couple of days.
Kind regards
FOI Coordinator
OFFICIAL
Dear Me
Thank you for your email.
As we need to consult with third parties on the release of the documents requested, the deadline is now 30 days from the date of the letter, being Monday 19th February.
Please let the FOI team know if you have any further questions.
Kind regards
FOI Officer
OFFICIAL
Dear Me,
Please see attached a decision letter together with the documents released
to you in relation to your FOI request (our reference FOI 23-24/034).
Kind regards
FOI Officer | Legal and Assurance Branch
Business Enabling Services
Department of Finance
A: One Canberra Avenue, Forrest ACT 2603
Dear FOI Requests,
Thanks for your decision
The decision is quite good. At the same time, I disagree, and I intend to submit an internal review. This email is not a request for internal review.
However, none of the attachments to the disclosed documents are included. Attachments are not excluded by the scope of my request. The OAIC has made clear that if a document is within scope, documents attached to that document are in scope (for example, attachments to emails). Alternatively, my scope included "other document containing substantive reasons for decision", such as Document 1 page 3 "A comprehensive statement of reasons explaining your decision ... is at Attachment A".
I don't think this point is controversial. Rather than argue it in an internal review, I invite DoF to provide an amended decision that includes all documents in scope.
Please advise if you intend to provide an amended decision and disclosure.
Yours sincerely,
Me
Thank you for your email, which has been forwarded to the Department’s FOI
Team for their consideration. A member of the FOI Team will respond to
your email in the next couple of days.
Kind regards
FOI Coordinator
Dear Department of Finance,
I infer you will not provide the attachments.
I note the internal review time limit is 30 calendar days. As per the decision letter, the 30 days is from the date of notification (19 February 2024), not the date of the decision (14 February 2024).
My understanding of how days are counted means I have until 2359 Wednesday 20 March 2024 to submit an IR. I will assume this is correct, and/or that Finance consents to that deadline, unless Finance advises otherwise.
Yours faithfully,
Me
Thank you for your email, which has been forwarded to the Department’s FOI
Team for their consideration. A member of the FOI Team will respond to
your email in the next couple of days.
Kind regards
FOI Coordinator
Dear Department of Finance,
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.
I am writing to request an internal review of Department of Finance's handling of my FOI request 'Finance AoG decisions re: ASIC (unsuccessful)'.
This is an internal review of FOI decision reference 23-24/034. It is within time.
I note my emails to Finance on 21 February and 13 March 2024 were not responded to.
Apologies in advance, I’d’ve written shorter submissions but I didn’t have the time.
As a general comment, it is interesting to compare FOI decisions from entities with centralised and decentralised FOI functions. I infer Finance’s FOI function is decentralised, given the first instance decision-maker is an SES1 not from an FOI/privacy area. The benefits are the decision-maker has clearly turned their mind to the issues, decided, and given reasons for the decision (as against the almost cut-paste approach of centralised decision-makers). The disbenefits are the decision-maker does not live and breathe the FOI Act and OAIC Guidelines (as against the legally defensible reasoning of centralised decision-makers).
If Finance’s internal review procedure does not involve the decision being made by a full-time FOI decision-maker, I recommend the decision-maker obtain legal advice before deciding.
Paragraph references are to the OAIC Guidelines.
Attachments
By default, attachments (however named) to a document are within scope of the request if the document is in scope of the request ([3.54]; Timmins and Attorney-General’s Department [2015] AICmr 32).
Regardless, my request expressly included ‘other document[s] containing substantive reasons for decision’. This would include, for example, ‘"A comprehensive statement of reasons explaining your decision ... is at Attachment A"’ (Document 1 Page 3).
The decision-maker must release all attachments to the documents, redacted as justifiable.
Section 22
Finance is required to release all information in scope of my request unless a specific exemption applies.
My scope did exclude non-SES personal information and third-party personal information.
My scope did not exclude, nor would a reasonable decision-maker consider it likely my scope would exclude, numbers and other information that is either [3.95]:
• Not personal information, or
• Not personal information that is identifiable once other redactions are applied, or
• Would not otherwise be as justified exemption under s 47F.
For example, Document 1 Page 1 redacts what appears to be:
• The number of act of grace payments
• The amounts of act of grace payments (individually or in total)
• The number of ‘statements of reasons explaining your decision’
• The a/Assistant Secretary’s name (noting I excluded non-SES officers. Directors acting as SES are SES while performing the SES role. Otherwise, you wouldn’t pay them more).
• ‘Finance receive [redacted]’, where ‘redacted’ is a sentence or more, and inferentially not only a third party’s name or address or DOB or other identifying information.
The internal review should remove all s 22 redactions, unless they are redacting something that inherently reveals the personal information of a third party or non-SES individual (natural person). For example:
• Valid redactions would be:
o An individual’s name
o An individual’s address
o An individual’s personal phone number
• Invalid redactions would be:
o Dollar figures
o Other numerals not forming part of a personal phone number or personal address or similar
o Any information that does not by itself directly identify a specific individual
Further, it appears that information relating to corporations has been redacted under s 22. Corporations do not possess personal information. Any and all corporation related information must be released, unless it directly identifies a specific individual (for example, redacting the names of directors would be valid).
The grounds on which s 22 redactions were made, and any other reasons for decision for the s 22 redactions ([3.100]), were not included in the decision. Such grounds and reasons must be included ([3.185]). Please include these in the internal review decision.
I note the purpose of an applicant offering s 22 redactions to confine the scope is to assist Finance to decide quickly and at the lowest reasonable cost. If Finance flagrantly abuses an applicant’s offer of s 22 redactions, applicants will be forced not to make such offers, and Finance will have to do more work for no benefit. This is especially the case if personal information is no longer offered to be excluded from the scope.
Section 42
The decision does not provide reasons for decision. The statement ‘I have examined the documents and I have found it to contain information that falls under the definition [of LPP]’ is not reasons for decision. ‘Quote quote therefore’ is not a valid form of reasoning. There needs to be an explanation of why the quotes result in therefore, with references to material facts et al [3.100].
Without reasons for decision, the s 42 redactions are not justified and must be removed.
Further, the decision-maker seemingly failed to consider the 24 paragraphs that follow their quotes. In particular:
• (Late amendment, the author appears to be non-SES from Discretionary Payments Section, writing to the SES1. Please read the below as if it referred to the correct author)
• The author of the documents (an SES1 of various titles in the Procurement & Insurance Division) does not appear to be on the roll of a supreme court. If the author of a document is not an admitted lawyer, nothing they say is or can be legal advice, and therefore s 42 simply does not apply.
o Noting [5.133]: a practicing certificate is not required, but being a ‘lawyer’ is required, because only lawyers can give legal advice. One is not a ‘lawyer’ until they are on the roll.
• There is no evidence from the reasons for decision or released documents to suggest that the s 42 redactions are direct quotes of legal advice produced by a person on the roll of a supreme court.
• The redactions fail the relevant criteria in [5.131]:
o The SES1 Procurements & Insurance Division (however titled) was not acting in the capacity of a professional legal adviser. They were acting in the capacity of a garden variety public servant.
o The dominant purpose test is not satisfied. The dominant purpose was to advise the addressee whether and why they should or shouldn’t grant an act of grace application. Any included legal reasoning or ‘legal advice’ was incidental.
o There is no evidence that the relationship between the author and addressee, and/or the author and Finance, is a legal adviser/client relationship (see also [5.134]).
o The ‘advice’ is an internal communication that is a routine part of Finance’s act of grace function, and therefore not covered by LPP (see also [5.135]).
• Even if LPP does apply, the decision-maker is required to consider the ‘real harm’ test and did not. There would be no substantial prejudice to Finance’s affairs if the information were released. Rather, the release would directly support the objects of the FOI Act. This type of document is what the FOI Act exists to require the government to disclose.
Section 47E – does not apply
The redactions applied are too broad.
‘details related to the decision-making processes of Finance in assessing the claims for an act of grace…’ are the type of details the FOI Act exists to disclose. They are the very definition of transparency in government decision-making. No reasons are given as to why releasing such details would be prejudicial.
‘Release of the documents in full…’ is erroneous reasoning. Finance is not required to release the documents ‘in full’. The ‘input relating to the operations of other Commonwealth agencies’ that was provided by other agencies for the decisions in the documents can be redacted. That does not require redacting general ‘details related to the decision-making processes of Finance’.
Further, it cannot prejudice the effectiveness of Finance’s future examinations of other Commonwealth agencies when those agencies are obliged to provide the information to Finance.
Alternatively, per [6.84], ‘Public servants are expected to operate within a framework that encourages open access to information … transparency of the work of public servants should be the accepted operating environment and fears about a lessening of frank and candid advice correspondingly diminished.’ It is no valid justification to say that releasing input from other Commonwealth agencies may make them less forthcoming in future, because it is specifically their duty to be forthcoming in a high transparency environment. The agencies that had input should expect that input to be released under FOI.
Alternatively, if ‘future examinations’ means something like ‘judge the worthiness of the claimant’s act of grace claim’, that is not a basis for non-disclosure. Finance is expressly expected by the FOI Act to release such documents. Act of grace decisions are not meant to be a black box; claimants are meant to know how their claims will be examined, and the bases on which their claims will be accepted or rejected.
Section 47E – public interest
I take particular objection to:
‘I consider that giving access to the documents would promote the objectives of the FOI Act by providing access to documents held by an agency. I attribute minimal weight to this factor as this objective applies to all documents, regardless of the effect of releasing the documents.’
That this statement was cleared for release is frankly astonishing. The decision-maker clearly did not obtain legal advice. This statement amounts to saying something like ‘because the objects of the FOI Act apply to all documents, the objectives are meaningless’. And/or, of course the objective ‘applies to all documents’… That’s how the objects of an Act work. Would it somehow be a weightier factor if the FOI Act only applied its objectives to some documents? And if the FOI Act did only apply its objects to some documents, then why have those documents covered by the FOI Act at all, given that everything in an Act is required to be understood in the way that best meets the Act’s objectives?
That is, the decision-maker failed to apply the public interest test in the way required by the FOI Act, and so the application of the public interest test is void. The documents must be released as, having not failed the public interest test, they must be released.
More specifically:
• An individual’s right to privacy is wholly irrelevant to s 47E. If material needs to be redacted on this basis, it must be justified under s 47F.
o Noting that even if [6.22(iii)] was relevant to s 47E, there is no evidence in the documents or the decision that the personal information relates specifically to ‘personnel management’. Moreover, if such information actually is in a minute advising on what act of grace decision to make, the author of the minute themselves is in need of ‘personnel management’
• As above, the decision-maker is required to assume that transparency of government documents will not prejudice an agency’s ability to obtain similar information in the future from other Commonwealth entities ([6.84])
• None of the factors against disclosure relate to ‘Release of the documents in full may adversely affect the operations of Finance by prejudicing the effectiveness of future examinations of claims for acts of grace payments’.
Missing documents
The scope of my request was for the 10 most recent decisions. Only 5 decisions were provided. Please confirm that, from federation until 30 June 2023, there are only 10 act of grace decisions where:
• A minute relating to the decision was produced, OR
• Another document containing substantive reasons for decision was produced.
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/f...
Yours faithfully,
Me
Thank you for your email, which has been forwarded to the Department’s FOI
Team for their consideration. A member of the FOI Team will respond to
your email in the next couple of days.
Kind regards
FOI Coordinator
OFFICIAL
Dear Me,
Internal review of Freedom of Information Decision – FOI 23-24/034IR
Thank you for your email to the Department of Finance (Finance) requesting
an internal review of the decision for FOI 23-24/034.
General FOI matters
Your request was received by Finance on 20 March 2024. The statutory
period for processing your request commences from the day after Finance
received your request and a decision is due on Friday 19 April 2024.
Publication
As required by the FOI Act, any documents provided to you under the FOI
Act will be published on our [1]disclosure log, unless an exemption
applies or the documents are characterised as containing personal
information. Documents will be published the next working day after they
are released to you.
Policy to exclude junior officer contact details, signatures and mobile
phone numbers
Finance has adopted a policy to generally exclude from any documents
released under FOI, the names and contact details of junior staff (non-SES
officers) and staff employed under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act
1984 (adviser level and below). Finance has also adopted a policy to
exclude signatures and mobile phone numbers from any documents released
under FOI (unless publicly available). Finance’s preference is to reach
agreement with FOI applicants to exclude these details from the scope of
the request. Where there is no objection, the names and contact details of
junior officers, as well as any signatures and mobile phone numbers
appearing in identified documents, will be redacted under section 22 of
the FOI Act on the basis that these details are irrelevant to the request.
Please contact the FOI Team on the below contact details if you wish to
discuss your request.
Kind regards,
FOI Team
FOI Officer | Legal and Assurance Branch
Business Enabling Services
Department of Finance
A: One Canberra Avenue, Forrest ACT 2603
References
Visible links
1. https://www.finance.gov.au/about-us/free...
OFFICIAL
Dear ‘Me’
I am writing in relation to your internal review request for FOI
23-24/034. Regrettably, the Department of Finance is not in a position to
finalise your request by the statutory timeframe, and respectfully seek
your agreement to an extension of time to consider and review your
request.
Currently, we are in the process of consulting with external parties and
are conducting further searches of the Finance’s document management
system to identify any further documents that may be in scope of your
request. However, we do not anticipate that responses will be returned in
such time for us consider any comments and/or new documents. Finance also
requires further time to consider the submissions you’ve raised in your
Internal Review request to ensure that a comprehensive response to your
comments is provided. We anticipate that an extension of 17 days will
sufficiently assist us to complete the request.
Accordingly, Finance seeks your agreement to extend the processing period
by 17 days with a new due date Monday 6 May 2024.
We will formally write to the Office of the Australian Information
Commissioner (OAIC) and seek an extension of time under s 54D of the
Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act). You may expect correspondence
from the OAIC in relation to our request.
If you have any questions or concerns, please email
[1][email address].
Kind regards,
FOI team
FOI Officer | Legal and Assurance Branch
Business Enabling Services
Department of Finance
E: [2][email address]
A: One Canberra Avenue, Forrest ACT 2603
From: FOI Requests <[email address]>
Sent: Friday, April 5, 2024 9:02 PM
To: [FOI #10722 email]
Cc: FOI Requests <[email address]>
Subject: FOI 23-24/034IR - Acknowledgement of request for internal review
[SEC=OFFICIAL]
OFFICIAL
Dear Me,
Internal review of Freedom of Information Decision – FOI 23-24/034IR
Thank you for your email to the Department of Finance (Finance) requesting
an internal review of the decision for FOI 23-24/034.
General FOI matters
Your request was received by Finance on 20 March 2024. The statutory
period for processing your request commences from the day after Finance
received your request and a decision is due on Friday 19 April 2024.
Publication
As required by the FOI Act, any documents provided to you under the FOI
Act will be published on our [3]disclosure log, unless an exemption
applies or the documents are characterised as containing personal
information. Documents will be published the next working day after they
are released to you.
Policy to exclude junior officer contact details, signatures and mobile
phone numbers
Finance has adopted a policy to generally exclude from any documents
released under FOI, the names and contact details of junior staff (non-SES
officers) and staff employed under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act
1984 (adviser level and below). Finance has also adopted a policy to
exclude signatures and mobile phone numbers from any documents released
under FOI (unless publicly available). Finance’s preference is to reach
agreement with FOI applicants to exclude these details from the scope of
the request. Where there is no objection, the names and contact details of
junior officers, as well as any signatures and mobile phone numbers
appearing in identified documents, will be redacted under section 22 of
the FOI Act on the basis that these details are irrelevant to the request.
Please contact the FOI Team on the below contact details if you wish to
discuss your request.
Kind regards,
FOI Team
FOI Officer | Legal and Assurance Branch
Business Enabling Services
Department of Finance
A: One Canberra Avenue, Forrest ACT 2603
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. mailto:[email address]
3. https://www.finance.gov.au/about-us/free...
Dear FOI Requests,
I am happy to grant an extension
As it happens I will be away. I grant an extension to OOB Monday 13 May 2024.
Yours sincerely,
Me