Dear Information Commissioner,
Disclosure of public servants’ names and contact details – Discussion paper
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this subject. I apologise for its length but it could have been a lot longer!
As a person who has requested access to documents from an Australian Government agency, have you been denied access to the names of agency staff? Did you consider this decision was justified? If not, why not?

The Department of Human Services FOI Issues
1.	Over the years I have made FOI requests of the ATO, the Australian Public Service Commission, the Australian Information Commission, Brisbane City Council and the Department of Human Services. I have also dealt with the Australian Government Solicitor in relation to some of my requests. Whilst I have had disagreements with other agencies (most notably the ATO) I have always found them to be professional in their conduct. The only Department which has not provided contact details in what I consider to be in line with the FOI Guidelines is the Department of Human Services. (DHS).
2.	The DHS has made it quite clear (via Departmental FOI decisions and discussions with a Senior Government lawyer)  that under no circumstances will Departmental contact details be released unless the employee agrees and then it is conditional, in that contact details may not be released even though names may be. I have found that the only exception relating to FOI matters is when the Department needs something from you (e.g. an agreement for an extension of time)
FOI Guidelines and Case Precedents
3.	In disallowing my FOI requests for contact details it is my experience that DHS simply ignores the FOI Guidelines, case precedents or uses case precedents to artificially confect reasons for refusal.
4.	In particular, the meaning of ‘substantial and adverse’ (a key condition which must be met to secure Conditional Exemption) and the meaning of the phrase:
Where public servants' personal information is included in a document because of their usual duties or responsibilities, it would not be unreasonable to disclose unless special circumstances existed. This is because the information would reveal only that the public servant was performing their public duties.
have been subject to explanation in fairly sharp detail within the Guidelines but completely ignored by DHS decision makers in its virtual blanket refusal to release staff details. Additionally, it is extremely galling to experience the Department completely ignoring case precedents (either via confection or ignoring substance) even though they are brought to the attention of the decision maker.  
Specific Examples of Departmental Procedural Errors relating to my Requests 
Example 1
5.	My first encounter with the Department to merely obtain the names of Departmental Officers is instructive of this Department’s attitude to its customers and legal obligations under the FOI Act. 

6.	I made a simple request for contact details of two Departmental Officers who handle my Pension Loan. The FOI Officer sent me a formal consultation notice, indicating  that I must provide her with a specific document or class of documents in order for her to provide the document. ( At first instance, most agencies would merely be satisfied that the document at issue would be contained within the staff directory as a common sense outcome). The issuance of the formal consultation notice breached the Guidelines which indicate that a Notice should be precursed by informal communication at first instance. Given that I had provided my phone number for this very purpose it was most unsatisfactory to me to have been put through this process unnecessarily. In reply I stated the following:
•	“I  would have thought that the documents requested would be contained within a staff directory or some other similar corporate, departmental or interdepartmental directory and I would be grateful if you could search this resource at first instance.  Also, if you (as an HRD officer) wanted to find out the details I have requested then perhaps you could utilise the resource you would use to undertake that request within the Department. Eg a computer screen dump. I most certainly do not want to access every e mail or letter sent by those officers named in the request and I am a bit surprised that my request gave this impression as you were advised that the background to the request was contained within my previous FOI request. I cannot see contextually therefore how you could have arrived at this conclusion.”
•	I then went on to state and request: 
“The Department’s Obligation
I note that the agency is required to take reasonable steps to to assist me to revise the request so  that the practical refusal reason no longer exists (ss 24AB(3), (4)). 

As you have stated that you clearly  understand the terms used in my request:

To facilitate revising my request please advise the class of the Documents or Documents (which are not e mails, correspondence or letters) such that a search  would not result in a substantial and unreasonable diversion of resources. Eg the classifications listed by me above. As this is a simple request, one way of facilitating this process would be for you to draft a suitably worded request for my consideration if this will assist you. “
•	The Department Response (which completely ignored its responsibilities under the Act) was as follows:
“Reasonable assistance to allow you to remove the practical refusal reason has been provided by way of the consultation notice issued to you on 3 August 2018. For example, in that notice the department suggested that, on review of the scope of your request, you may wish to use more precise language to describe the documents or class of documents you seek and providing a more precise and limited date range as this may assist the department in providing you with the correct documents.  Beyond this, the consultation process does not allow the department the opportunity to draft a suitably worded request for your consideration. This is particularly because this would require searches to be conducted, and searches for documents cannot be conducted during the consult period when this is likely to result in a substantial and unreasonable diversion of the resources of the department.”
•	I then replied as follows (I have included my response in full because not only does it outline in detail the breach of the Department’s responsibilities to assist its customers, it highlights the fact that they have no idea as to what this responsibility means):
“Thank you for your email. 

The FOI guidelines provide the following:
Assisting the applicant during a request consultation process
3.133 If an applicant contacts a contact officer during the consultation period, the contact officer must take reasonable steps to help them revise the request so that the practical refusal reason no longer exists (s 24AB(3)). For example, a contact officer could provide a breakdown of the time estimated for each step of the process, explain the difficulties the agency will have in dealing with the request and suggest what would be a reasonable request in the circumstances.
Unfortunately your response to my making contact with the contact officer during the consultation period (i.e. my email of 6 August) is deficient in that not only has the Department not taken reasonable steps to help me revise my request (after I have made contact with the contact officer), it has not taken any steps at all! 

Merely regurgitating (at a very late stage) and adverting to what was sent in the formal consultation letter ie “on review of the scope of your request, you may wish to use more precise language to describe the documents or class of documents you seek and providing a more precise and limited date range as this may assist the department in providing you with the correct documents” does not, I would submit meet the requirements of the guidelines  in particular, “and suggest what would be a reasonable request in the circumstances”. 

I would respectfully ask that you consider the following from the Review undertaken by the OAIC “FOI at the Department of Human Services: Report of an own motion investigation” - Please refer Recommendation 9.
Purpose of the request consultation process
•	As noted above, 38% of request consultation processes conducted by the department resulted in a revised request scope that was able to be processed. It appears that this figure is low because of a lack of internal guidance about the purpose of a request consultation process, and about how to assist an applicant to make a revised request.….
•	An applicant typically does not know:
what documents or how many documents an agency holds……………………..    And
Due to the information imbalance between an agency and an FOI applicant, the agency needs to take the lead in any request consultation process if it is to result in a revised scope. It is therefore important that an agency officer conducting a consultation process should aim to assist the applicant to frame a request that can be processed.
Given the above I cannot accept your contention that , “the consultation process does not allow the department the opportunity to draft a suitably worded request for your consideration” which in any case was only a suggestion and not a request, albeit to assist you to eliminate the practical refusal reason. As mention above on contacting you during the consultation process no steps were taken by the Department to assist in framing the request (despite my best endeavours). 
I am disappointed that you have not seen fit to assist me to reframe my request given:
•	The essential simplicity of the request
•	The fact that I have ruled out of my request all documents such as e mails and letters……….and
•	Suggested that “notwithstanding that I am unaware of the nature of the documents underpinning my request, I would have thought that the documents requested would be contained within a staff directory or some other similar corporate, departmental or interdepartmental directory and I would be grateful if you could search this resource at first instance. Also, if you (as an HRD officer) wanted to find out the details I have requested then perhaps you could utilise the resource you would use to undertake that request within the Department. Eg a computer screen dump.”
•	That I have narrowed the request considerably and requested that you:

“please advise the class of the Documents or Documents (which are not e mails, correspondence or letters) such that a search would not result in a substantial and unreasonable diversion of resources. Eg the classifications listed by me above. As this is a simple request, one way of facilitating this process would be for you to draft a suitably worded request for my consideration if this will assist you”. And

1.	With respect to the document request containing the information concerning the SES officer I am happy to have a copy of his or her Business Card if one exists.

I have considered your comments:

Noting that the formal consultation period ends at midnight 17 August 2018, if you do not provide a further revised request, the department will continue processing your request in accordance with the FOI Act.

The problem I have with that statement is that the Department has failed to properly conduct the “request consultation process”, in fact it has not conducted a process at all. I am perfectly willing to agree to an extension of time if this will assist you to initiate a consultation process such that the practical refusal reason no longer exists. 

Finally I wish to express my disappointment in not having received a reply to my request:

I am also currently unaware of an Applicant’s requirement to provide you with a specific document or class of documents in order for you to fulfil your duties. (If that is in fact the case, could you please advise the source).

Can you kindly please respond. 

As always I am available for phone contact. I take the opportunity to send you the link to Department of Human Services: Report of an own motion investigation” where there are numerous statements to the effect that communication by phone contact is a desirable form of communication. https://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-information/foi-decisions/foi-omi-reports/foi-at-the-dhs#recommendations

As indicated previously it is my preferred form of contact to overcome issues.”

7.	Very soon afterwards I was advised that the matter had been reallocated to a new officer and that the request was being processed on the basis that the documents I was seeking would be those contained within a staff directory. There was no hint of apology neither for the lengthy delay nor for the lack of proper administrative process and assistance.

Example 2
8.	One officer advised me the following reasoning in her decision not to provide me with staff details:
In your request for review, you state that two departmental officers have provided you with their full names, names other certain officers are provided on the department’s website, and that many department officers identify themselves as employees of the department on LinkedIn and list their position within the department. Clause H6.1 of the department’s Enterprise Agreement provides staff members with the choice of whether they provide their full names or only their first names when responding to public enquiries. It is for the individual staff member to make this decision, not the FOI Officer processing your request.  
Unfortunately the decision maker failed to acquit her assigned duties as she focused her attention on making an interpretation of the meaning of a clause in an Enterprise Agreement instead of applying the provisions of the FOI Act. To make matters worse she actually failed to read Clause H6.1 properly as it states:
Employees will have a choice about whether they provide their full name or only their first name in response to public enquiries, including in correspondence and face to face contact, unless legislation requires otherwise.
Apart from anything else the highlighted phrase (above) should have guided her to consider that her prime responsibility to a request by an FOI Applicant, is to apply the FOI Act, not to confect a reason to allow her to wash her hands of that responsibility. In effect she is stating that the FOI Act is rendered otiose  by a Staff Enterprise agreement and release of documents therefore are subservient to the whim of its employees. 
How could such basic flaws in reasoning be allowed to flow through to me?
Example 3
9.	Another FOI officer advised me my application for staff names failed because the Department held the following position:
“In order to continue to provide the staff members of the department with the primary duty of care, the department has established a position by which staff names will not be released to the public.”
10.	As this was obviously contrary to the Guidelines and indeed the Act, I subsequently requested, via an  FOI request the Departmental Document which the decision maker relied upon to make his statement. 
11.	I subsequently received a phone call from a Senior Lawyer in the Department indicating that no such document existed. I therefore withdrew the FOI request, but one wonders how an Authorised FOI officer can make such a flawed statement about an issue which he is expected to competently administer.                
Example 4
12.	In a further instance a Departmental Manager (non FOI officer) advised me in a telephone call I received from her that she could not provide me with her positional e mail address  because it was against departmental guidelines and rules and that in effect disciplinary action could be taken against her if she did so. This seemed strange to me because my experience was totally different in that the Departmental FOI area did contact me by E mail as well as a Departmental Senior Lawyer. She nevertheless stated that she could not give me her email address.
13.	When I asked via an FOI request for the underpinning document which the Departmental manager relied upon, I received another phone call from the Senior Lawyer advising that no such document existed. I then of course withdrew the FOI request but how is it that a departmental manager could be under such a misapprehension.
Example 5
14.	I then took the liberty of applying under FOI for the Department’s position in relation to providing personal details to customers under the Freedom of Information Act. I was provided with FOI Disclosure Log Request LEX 17265. The document advised the following:
Freedom of Information – release of staff names  
Documents that include the names of employees may be released to customers if a request is lodged under the FOI Act  • If you think that disclosure of this information would or could reasonably be expected to endanger your life or physical safety, that information may be exempt from release • For the exemption to be considered, you should supply supporting documentation including the reasons for your concerns. This should also be supported by your manager. An incident will be recorded on the customer’s record to alert FOI employees to the need to consider an employee’s safety in the release of information 
Freedom of Information Act exemption for release of staff names
Documents that include the names of staff members may be released to customers if a request is lodged under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act). However, if a staff member thinks that disclosure of their names would or could reasonably be expected to endanger their life or physical safety, that information may be exempt from release. For the exemption to be considered, the staff member concerned should supply supporting documentation containing the reasons why they feel threatened. This should be supported by the manager. Staff can consider their personal circumstances and make decisions about the availability of their personal contact details in the public domain including electoral rolls and phone book listings. 
15.	As you can see from these two paragraphs (above) the Department’s guidelines on disclosure of staff names are completely at odds with how the FOI Department actually treats release of staff names, at least in my experience. The Department has a practical policy of non-release in any instance  whereas the Departmental guidelines LEX  17265 would appear to indicate that non-release should only be considered in exceptional circumstances.
Example 6
16.	My requests for the names and contact details of FOI officers who were handling my FOI Requests were met with refusal at both the decision and internal review levels. Although the name of the decision makers were not the names of the officers subject to the request the decision makers were in effect making a decision about their own circumstances, which were common to those of the officers subject to the request. This request should have been handled by an authorised officer in another agency due to the clear conflict of interest within FOI Centrelink. Conflicts of interest are subject to the Public Service’s code of conduct provisions and need to be taken seriously.
Summary
17.	My experience demonstrates that there appears to be no coherent, (indeed to the opposite -  a schizophrenic) policy within the Department as to how staff details are to be treated under FOI or as a Department in general. This may be due to inexperience.  One  FOI authorised officer denied me access using confected  reasons which do not actually exist within the Department, whilst one officer completely ignored the FOI Act (which she as an FOI Authorised officer) is duty bound to administer. A third Departmental officer (a Manager) also provided me with a reason for not providing an e mail address. It also turns out that the policy which she alluded to also does not exist. In my experience, the actual Departmental policy (LEX 17265) which does exist, (such that it is) would seem to be  completely ignored by those charged with administering the FOI Act. Additionally the Department seems to be ignorant of just what is expected of it with respect to assisting clients.
18.	The most annoying aspect is the fact that on several occasions I have been supplied with contact details of certain staff. Being provided with this information is in direct contradiction to the very reasons provided by the FOI area for not providing me with information in relation to my FOI requests at first instance. 
19.	Furthermore in 'PF' and Department of Human Services (Freedom of information) [2018] AICmr 59 (11 July 2018), a case which should be known to the HRD FOI area, it was held that as the Department had already provided the applicant with the same information refused under the FOI request the Department had no grounds to refuse access to the FOI requested material.
Decisions relating to Contact Details Requested by Me Under FOI
20.	All requests for staff contact details have been refused. I have requested contact details of persons who handle my pension loan and secondly persons who have administered my FOI applications. These requests solely relate to officers who are acting in the course of their duties as employees. Under the FOI Guidelines these details should be released as a matter of course.
21.	Both these areas (FOI and Pension Loan areas) are Boutique areas with only a handful of people who deal with their administration. It is not only a complete waste of time to try to contact these areas via the 13 number it is mostly fruitless as the number rings out. In the case of the Pension Loan area I was advised to make contact via letter to ask them to give me a call. In the case of the FOI area it is impossible to contact the officer concerned because the officer’s name is not released and hence even a phone call via the switchboard is not feasible.
22.	One standard reason for refusing to provide me with contact details goes like this:
The department receives a large amount of correspondence and communication from members of the public. The department has established a range of methods in which members of the public can contact the department including postal addresses, general email addresses, and telephone and fax numbers. These methods of contact have been established to avoid specific departmental teams being contacted directly by customers.   
Releasing the contact details of departmental staff and teams could have an adverse effect on the proper and efficient conduct of the operations of the department, for the following reasons:  
• these contact details are not in the public domain, and are intended to be used to facilitate confidential communications for relevant departmental businesses;   
• given the dedicated contact points currently available to customers and members of the public, if other contact details of identified teams or staff members were released to the world at large, there would be a potential increase in the workloads of teams, reducing the efficiency of the department as customers will not be using the most appropriate service area; and  
• from time to time, some internal 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 which may result in services not being administered correctly. 
23.	It is incomprehensible that a Department whose prime function is to serve the public, would request a customer to go through the switch board or indeed write a letter of request for a phone call when the only people who can help are already available by direct communication, particularly when it is common knowledge that millions of calls from the public go unanswered each year. How could my phoning up an officer on a rare occasion be considered to be so substantial and adverse to attract a conditional exemption? It is not rational.
24.	A further standard reason is as follows:
In the modern technological environment, the release of even minimal personal details (such as a full name or contact details) may allow members of the public to use social media mediums to identify and target staff members for harassment, bullying or intimidation. In order to continue to provide the staff members of the department with the primary duty of care, the department has established a position by which staff names will not be released to the public. Given the current political and media scrutiny of the department, there is a genuine risk of customer aggression towards departmental staff members.”
There is a very real risk that aggrieved individuals of the public may be able to identify staff members in their personal capacity, such as via social media mediums like Facebook and LinkedIn. From this, they may be able to harass, intimidate or abuse departmental staff members whilst in their personal capacity.
The decision maker’s  statement contained within the first paragraph above is contradicted because as a matter of fact:
a)    the Department has not established a position by which staff names will not be released – indeed the opposite position would seem to apply (as point 15 referenced by me above demonstrates), 
b) 	certain Departmental staff have indeed provided me with personal details  and 
as far as the second paragraph is concerned;
c)  a quick search of LinkedIn shows that there are literally hundreds of Department of Human Services employees who identify as DHS employees, with some additionally actually providing their name as well as their position within DHS. Doubtless there are many DHS employees who similarly self-initiate employee details in Facebook. 
Accordingly it brings into question the decision maker’s reasoning that:
In the modern technological environment, the release of even minimal personal details (such as a full name or contact details) may allow members of the public to use social media mediums to identify and target staff members for harassment, bullying or intimidation.
when there is widespread  use of social media by HRD staff who voluntarily self-initiate their staff details. Again this statement is contradicted by the DHS itself. I quote Mr Hank Jongen Centrelink spokesman who advises the following in the smh article:
“Department of Human Services spokesman Hank Jongen said customer aggression was relatively rare, given the large number of interaction between Centrelink and the public each year.
"We deal with almost all 23 million Australians and each day our staff have hundreds of thousands of contacts with customers," the spokesman said. "While the vast majority of these interactions are cooperative, friendly and respectful, customer aggression incidents do happen."The causes are complex and often involve people who are experiencing difficult circumstances in their lives. "Mr Jongen said the department did everything it could to ensure its workers were kept safe.”
Thus Centrelink’s own view that customer aggression was relatively rare runs counter to the argument proffered by its own FOI Officer. 
25. In conclusion, the Department’s efforts to justify non-release not only are contrary to the instructions in LEX 17625 but are contradicted by the conduct of the DHS staff itself within social media, as well as some staff members who have provided me with their contact details. 
26. I have also  been subject to a couple of boutique reasons as to why staff names would not be released to me. My favourite is the comparison made by the decision maker of my circumstances with a refusal by the Commissioner to  release staff names in an area within the ATO connected with Debt Recovery of criminal gang members. The internal review officer was unmoved when I stated that I am a pensioner not engaged in criminal activities (so how could the circumstances be analogous?). 
27.	On internal review the decision maker doubled down and  stated additionally that release of the staff contact details in the documents I requested would, or could reasonably be expected to, have a further substantial and adverse effect on the management of personnel as releasing direct contact details to me would reduce the efficient management of the staff as they may be diverted from their other duties. The procedure at present is that contact arrangements with the Pension Loans area are by letter. The officers then phone me if requested. How can it be said that substituting an e mail or making  a phone call for the current  letter arrangements would divert them from their duties, when any contact by me to them would be purely in connection with their duties? Additionally, one or two telephone calls a year (if that) constitutes according to the Department, a ‘substantial and adverse effect’.  Really?
28.	Reasons for another refusal involved the decision maker stating that the provision of contact details may result in out of date information being provided resulting in me making contact with somebody no longer in the position. Thus one phone call (to a person no longer in the position) was said to constitute a substantial and adverse effect to the Department. This argument may be very convenient for the Department because all it requires is stonewalling to avoid providing information. Unfortunately for the Department the Guidelines make it very clear that:
3.35 A person’s right of access is not affected by any reasons they give for seeking access or any belief the agency or minister may have as to the reasons for seeking access (s 11(2)). In general, any use an applicant might make of the documents is not relevant to the decision whether to grant them access.
29.	I am particularly critical of the Department practice of ignoring case precedents in its decision making concerning staff contact details.. Claiming that the whole Departmental system of communication would fall apart (as it did in BB and Department of Human Services [2014] AICmr 11 (6 February 2014) was not accepted by the Privacy Commissioner. Why then would the Department not provide me with staff contact details in which my circumstances are similarly aligned. The Commissioner’s Appendix to the Discussion Paper outlines several other cases which support release also in circumstances similar to mine. 
30.	Why is this Department so intransigent and belligerent when the law on this issue is clearly settled, the law being reflected within the Commissioner’s Guidelines?
31.	At this juncture I will reflect on my experience as to the Department’s ability to fulfil the reason it states that contact details are not supplied to customers. To recap in “BB and the Department of Human Services” this is what the Department claimed:
The department receives a large amount of correspondence and communication from members of the public. The department has established a range of methods in which members of the public can contact the department including postal addresses, general email addresses, and telephone and fax numbers. These methods of contact have been established to avoid specific departmental teams being contacted directly by customers.   
Releasing the contact details of departmental staff and teams could have an adverse effect on the proper and efficient conduct of the operations of the department,
32.	 I attempted to comply with the FOI Department’s rules by sending an FOI query relating to one of my requests to the FOI general e mail address. I relate the outcome of this process below.
On the 8th of June I asked of FOI Officer L the following:
I am also currently unaware of an Applicant’s  requirement to provide you with a specific document or class of documents in order for you to fulfil your duties. (If that is in fact the case, could you please advise the source).’  
Outcome: No Response
On the 15th of August 2018 I wrote to FOI Officer D (the new FOI contact) as follows:
Finally I wish to express my disappointment in not having received a reply to my request:
“I am also currently unaware of an Applicant’s requirement to provide you with a specific document or class of documents in order for you to fulfil your duties. (If that is in fact the case, could you please advise the source).
Can you kindly please respond. 
Outcome: No response.
On the 23rd of August 2018 I wrote to FOI Officer I (who had since relieved FOI Officer D in processing my application) as follows:
There is one issue which I would like to raise with you. In my email to ‘’D” (copy enclosed) concerning the formal consultation process I indicated the following:
“Finally I wish to express my disappointment in not having received a reply to my request:
I am also currently unaware of an Applicant’s requirement to provide you with a specific document or class of documents in order for you to fulfil your duties. (If that is in fact the case, could you please advise the source).
Can you kindly please respond.”
In advising that you will now process my request you made no mention of my request to “D”. I note that I have requested the department for a response to this request on more than one occasion but have not received a reply. Can you please assist here?’
Outcome: No Response
33.	It is quite clear therefore that the system of contact which the department maintains, unless adhered, “will lead to an adverse effect on the proper and efficient conduct of the operations of the Department” does not work and even a simple request via email to the FOI Unit can be ignored ad infinitum should the Department so choose. An alternative ‘further assistance’ communication system such as direct phone numbers would not only be a greater customer experience but vastly improve accountability since customers would be able to correspond in relation to relevant issues which the Department would find it harder to ignore. I would add that other requests have also been ignored.
Summary
34.	My experience with the FOI area of the Department of Human Services as outlined above and in other respects has been extremely negative. This is in contrast to my experiences with other Public Service Departments. There have been issues in decision making, leadership, communication, professionalism and culture. The OIAC ‘own motion investigation’ highlighted some of the prevalent issues complained about by Applicants, particularly communication issues. Quite frankly, if my experience is anything to go by, not only has no  improvement been achieved, the Department seems to have regressed further. It is as if it did not take place. That embedded culture is an impediment to appropriate communication outcomes is demonstrated in the view of one DHS Pension Loan officer who stated that he personally was quite happy to provide me with his phone and contact details but to do so would be unfair to other Pension Loan participants. It did not occur to him that all Pension Loan participants should be provided with these details, not just me!
What are your views on deletion of the names of public servants and their contact details before documents are released in response to an FOI request? What are the reasons for your view?
35.	Firstly I have the firm view that this issue is primarily not, and never should be a Freedom of Information issue. This is a Departmental cultural issue.            
36.	The ATO (an organisation with similar demographics as the DHS) has no problem in releasing staff names/ contact details outside FOI parameters and this is understood by the staff. In contradistinction e g the DHS adopts a reverse position. The ATO actually has a Practice Statement which staff must follow. This Practice Statement affirms the position in the FOI Guidelines thus locking staff into a pro disclosure environment. Unlike the DHS there is a structured methodology underpinning the release of staff contact details and staff are not given a choice as to whether their names are released, except in exceptional circumstances. In effect there is an embedded culture of openness and transparency which seems to be lacking in the DHS.
37.	The Public Service Act, all Departmental Corporate Plans, the FOI Act itself, the Commissioner’s guidelines and decisions relating to this topic are all suggestive that recourse to FOI should not as a general rule be necessary.
Public Service Values
38.	The Public Service Values indicate the following:
•	The APS is openly accountable for its actions, within the framework of ministerial responsibilities to the government, the Parliament and the Australian public. 
•	The APS is responsive to the government in providing frank, honest, comprehensive, accurate and timely advice and in implementing the Government's policies and programs. 
•	The APS delivers services fairly, effectively, impartially and courteously to the Australian public and is sensitive to the diversity of the Australian public. 
39.	It cannot be said that a Department is open and accountable to the public (to whom they are accountable) when employee names and contact details are censored. (Quite apart from anything else it is extremely inefficient and ineffective).
The APSC sums it up thus:
2.1 Summary
2.1.1 Trust in government and a nation's democratic institutions is significantly influenced by the experience of business and the public as clients of the public service. Trust is also sustained by open and inclusive policy-making, as noted in recent reports of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). [6] 
2.1.2 The public's experience of service delivery has been transformed by advances in information and communications technology, enabling the government not only to deliver services in a more citizen-friendly manner, but also to incorporate business and community perspectives into service design and delivery.
2.1.3 Australian Public Service (APS) employees at all points along the service delivery chain—from those involved in high-level policy development to the people delivering front line services—must engage effectively with the community in the performance of their duties.
2.1.4 Employees should understand the legal and institutional framework in which they operate, and administer the law fairly and equitably, providing responsive, efficient and effective services. Public servants undertaking service delivery roles should provide reasonable assistance to help the public understand their entitlements and obligations; and must engage with the public respectfully and courteously.
Public Service Corporate Plans
40.	Using the Department of Human Services  2018 HRD Corporate Plan as a model it states the following:
Our strategic priorities
Customer‑centric service delivery
•	Deliver high-quality, timely and accessible services across our community.
•	Assist the community to achieve greater self‑sufficiency.
•	Maintain the integrity of payments and services.
Modernization
•	Make service delivery faster, more convenient and more responsive.
•	Enhance community experience and end‑to‑end digital delivery (making it digital‑by‑desire).
•	An innovative and collaborative culture that 
engages effectively with risk to support current 
and future needs.
Customer‑centric service delivery
We will continue to seek ways to deliver government services as efficiently and effectively as possible. This includes a continued effort to make services available through secure and easy-to-use digital channels that will enable our customers to be as self‑sufficient as possible in managing their affairs.
Our main objective is to deliver high-quality services and payments for the community with a strong focus on developing customer‑centric service delivery. This includes assisting customers with complex needs.
Modernisation
We are improving our services to make it easier and simpler for customers to transact with us. As we make effective use of new digital channels, there will be opportunities to:
•	enhance the customer experience
•	improve the integration of our services
•	increase efficiency.
Focusing on community experience as well as our workforce culture, the strategic priorities grouped under the theme of Modernisation will strongly underpin the department’s Customer‑centric service delivery and People priorities.
Make service delivery faster, more convenient and more responsive 
Customers will be able to access our services faster and in ways that suit them.
41.	If the DHS Corporate Plan is a credible document no one should have to resort to the lengths of making an FOI request to obtain staff contact details of a small two person unit which administers my Pension Loan or individuals who administer my FOI requests. These are discrete areas where only certain individuals have responsibility for administering customers’ affairs. 
42.	Having contact details in these instances would prevent the delays and frustration which I experienced in getting my Pension Loan approved. On the 9th of November 2015 I wrote the following to the DHS after trying for many months to get my loan approved:
2. Communication with Centrelink Pension Loans Area
As indicated to K  I am concerned that when I need to make contact with the PLS area I must do this via a 13 number or by letter. (Indeed K suggests that letter is the preferred medium of communication). I have spent hours on the phone, writing letters or attending Centrelink offices trying to get this loan through since late July 2015 which in this day and age is not sustainable.  The PLS is a small boutique specialist part of Centrelink. Most call centre or counter staff people within Centrelink do not know anything about the PLS or indeed its existence. It is incongruous that I must go firstly to someone who knows nothing about my case only to be directed to the PLS area. The wait to get on to the Centrelink staff member is always lengthy. Common sense would dictate that I and people in my position be given direct access to the only area which can assist as eventually the call ends up there anyway. 
Accordingly I would request that Centrelink provides me with relevant work phone numbers, e mail addresses and mobile phone numbers of officers who can assist me in my application resolution including technical advice officers. It would also be useful if I could be provided with the names and contact details of the relevant officers at issue. If the ongoing administration of the PLS is conducted within the PLS area then I would request similar details for those relevant staff.
43.	Ultimately, my pleas for direct communication were ignored and I had to resort to an FOI application which was denied and is currently on external review appeal with the OAIC. Similar reasoning applies to my requests for FOI officer contact details which were also denied. The aftermath of not being provided with staff contact details has resulted in a very large volume of reverse workflow time spent by me, the Department and the OAIC in dealing with my subsequent FOI applications, time which I would suggest would be better spent by all participants in other activities. The FOI areas in all Public Service Departments are stretched as is the case load within the OAIC. I am but one person. How much work would be reduced if the DHS adopted the ATO Practice Statement approach which in essence institutionalises and binds the Department to implementing the FOI Guidelines (e.g. 6.152 and 6.153) and Case precedents. 
44.	Although I have views as to why the DHS has adopted this position these are best served for another day.
45.	In summary, I do not think this is a very controversial subject. I believe that most Public Service Departments are quite happy to release names as part and parcel of doing business with the public just as is the case in the private sector. They see it as an efficient mechanism to conduct business. Where resort must be had to FOI, the law and Guidelines have been settled over a large period of time and as the cases indicate in only exceptional and special circumstances should names be redacted. 
46.	I do not agree that staff names should be released in instances where the Applicant is obviously making a gratuitous request on a whim or where to provide names and contact details would genuinely impact upon the good  management of the Department. Eg in situations where in effect staff are merely part of a call centre. 
Recommendation
47.	Finally, I believe that all Departments should be required to issue and place on their website their policy associated with disclosing staff names. This policy should be as comprehensive as the ATO Practice Statement on the subject and be supportive of the Guidelines issued by the Commissioner as well as citing case precedents. This will give customers suitable assurance as to how their FOI application for staff details will be administered as well as providing a measure of certainty amongst staff as to how FOI applications for staff contact details will be handled. Departmental staff (such as the DHS) as demonstrated above clearly, at present do not have this certainty.
Yours faithfully

Iain Young