Last updated: 15 March 2024
See outcomes and recommendations from FOI complaints investigations current as of 15 March 2024
Under Part VIIB of the FOI Act, the Information Commissioner can investigate an action taken by an agency in the performance of its functions or the exercise of powers under the FOI Act. This involves investigating complaints (s 69(1)), as well as conducting investigations at the Commissioner’s own initiative (Commissioner initiated investigations (CIIs)) (s 69(2)).
On completing an investigation, the Information Commissioner must provide a ‘notice on completion’ to the agency and to the complainant (if there is one) (s 86). The Information Commissioner’s notice on completion must include the investigation results, the investigation recommendations (if any), and the reasons for those results and any recommendations (s 86(2)). A notice on completion must not include exempt matter or information about the existence or non-existence of a document that would be exempt under ss 33, 37(1) or 45A (ss 89C and 25(1)).
If recommendations have been made (s 88), and the Information Commissioner is not satisfied that the agency has taken adequate and appropriate action to implement a formal recommendation, the Information Commissioner may issue a written ‘implementation notice’ requiring the agency to provide within a specified time particulars of any action the agency will take to implement the Information Commissioner’s recommendations (s 89).
The Information Commissioner may subsequently report to the minister responsible for the agency and the minister responsible for the FOI Act if the Information Commissioner is not satisfied that the agency has taken adequate and appropriate action to implement the recommendations or has not responded to the implementation notice within the specified time (s 89A). The minister responsible for the FOI Act must table the report before each House of the Parliament (s 89A(5)).
Respondent agency | Issue(s) | Type of FOI request | Date of Notice on completion | Outcome | Recommendations or suggestions | Respondent’s response to recommendations | Further action to be taken |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Department of Veterans’ Affairs | Whether the Department was incorrectly managing disclosure log access requests | Non-personal | 13 March 2024 | On balance, the complaint is substantiated. The Department has since taken reasonable steps to address the complainant’s concerns. There are no current delays with the Department providing access to documents from its disclosure log. | Two suggestions made:
| Not applicable. | Not applicable. |
Department of Industry, Science and Resources | Whether the Department ought to have consulted with the complainant prior to publishing documents on its disclosure log and third party websites | Personal | 6 March 2024 | On the balance, the complaint is substantiated. The Department has since taken reasonable steps to address the complainant’s concerns. The Department’s approach in this matter does not reflect any systemic procedural concerns in how the Department processes requests. | One suggestion made:
| Not applicable. | Not applicable. |
Australian Federal Police | Whether the AFP adequately communicated with the complainant while processing the request Whether there were delays in processing the request | Non-personal | 5 March 2024 | The complaint is substantiated. There were significant delays in processing the complainant’s request of 14 June 2021 made under s 15 of the FOI Act. The AFP was not sufficiently responsive to complainant’s emails to the AFP following the issue of a notice of intention to refuse. The AFP did not take reasonable steps during the practical refusal process to assist the complainant to revise the request so that the practical refusal reason no longer existed (see s 24AB of the FOI Act). | Three recommendations made:
| ||
National Disability Insurance Agency | Whether the Agency complied with statutory timeframes (s 15(5)(b)) Whether the Agency failed to provide timely responses to correspondence | Personal | 4 March 2024 | The complaint is substantiated. The Agency failed to comply with s15 of the FOI Act and failed to implement systems and processes sufficient to uphold its duties under the FOI Act. | Three recommendations made:
Two suggestions made:
| ||
Department of Veterans’ Affairs | Whether the Department complied with statutory timeframes (s 15(5)(a)) | Non-personal | 4 March 2024 | The complaint was substantiated. The Department acknowledged its failing, apologised to the complainant, and implemented a revised approach to ensure future compliance. | One suggestion made:
| Not applicable. | Not applicable. |
Department of Health and Aged Care | Whether the Department delayed in complying with a s 55K decision and providing the complainant with access to documents | Non-personal | 1 March 2024 | The complaint was substantiated. The Department acknowledges that it failed to inform the complainant of the delays or issues in meeting the timeframe. The Department had taken numerous steps to improve its FOI processes since August 2021, including a comprehensive review of the FOI processes, procedures and resourcing, provision of training to all FOI officers, and a recruitment drive. It acknowledges that it could develop policies and guidelines for responding to s 55K decisions. | Three suggestions made:
| Not applicable. | Not applicable. |
Department of Health and Aged Care | Whether the Department took reasonable steps to ensure it understood the scope of the complainant’s request, particularly as part of the internal review process | Non-personal | 28 February 2024 | The complaint was substantiated. | Two recommendations made:
| ||
Department of Health and Aged Care | Whether the Department took reasonable steps to assist the complainant revise the request so that the practical refusal reason no longer existed | Non-personal | 28 February 2024 | The complaint was substantiated. | No recommendations were made. The recommendations made to the Department on 22 January 2024 (see below) adequately address the identified deficiencies specific to this complaint. Therefore, no further formal recommendations were made in response to this complaint. The OAIC will monitor compliance in response to Notice on completion of 22 January 2024. | Not applicable. | Not applicable. |
Comcare | Whether Comcare should have notified the Information Commissioner of its request for an extension of time Whether Comcare followed proper procedures in issuing the Charges Notice in respect of only a portion of the request Whether Comcare adequately communicated with the complainant regarding the Charges Notice | Non-personal | 27 February 2024 | The complaint was substantiated. | Eight recommendations made:
One suggestion:
| ||
Australian Broadcasting Corporation | Whether the ABC acknowledge, or processed, the complainant’s five (5) FOI requests | Personal | 27 February 2024 | The complaint was substantiated. | Four recommendations made:
| ||
Services Australia | Whether there were deliberate delays by Services Australia Whether the Charges Notice was ‘void’ on the basis that the delegate did not sign the document Whether the Charges Notice was issued out of time Whether the exercise of the discretion to impose by Services Australia was properly done | Non-personal | 27 February 2024 | Services Australia’s decision to extend the processing time under s 15(6) of the FOI Act did not comply with the FOI Act or FOI Guidelines. The Charges Notice was not ‘void’ on the basis that the delegate failed to sign it. It was legally open to Services Australia to issue a Charges Notice; however, in doing so, Services Australia did not engage in practices appropriate to advancing the objects of the FOI Act, and particularly, to facilitate and promote public access to information, promptly and at the lowest reasonable cost (s 3(4) of the FOI Act). | Four recommendations made:
| Accepted; to implement. | |
Department of Industry, Science and Resources | Whether the Department imposed charges which were disproportionate to the work required to process the requests Whether the Department did not properly scrutinise the charge determined by the Australian Government Solicitor calculator (charges calculator) | Non-personal | 26 February 2024 | The complaint was substantiated. The Department did not properly scrutinise the data input into the charges calculator and therefore cannot be satisfied that it represented an accurate preliminary assessment of charge. | Four recommendations made:
Two suggestions made:
| ||
Department of Health and Aged Care | Whether the Department provided adequate assistance to complainant so that she could pay a charge and secure release of documents requested under s 15 of the FOI Act | Non-personal | 26 February 2024 | The complaint was substantiated. The Department acted inconsistently with the FOI Act, the Freedom of Information (Charges) Regulations 2019 and the FOI Guidelines in respect of finding the complainant liable to pay a charge. | Two recommendations made:
Two suggestions made:
| ||
Services Australia | Whether Services Australia is imposing charges on FOI applicants to deter them from perusing their requests | Non-personal | 23 February 2024 | The complaint was substantiated. | Four recommendations made:
| Accepted; to implement. | |
Services Australia | Whether Services Australia undertook a proper consideration of the issues as part of the internal review process Whether it was best practice for the original decision-maker and internal review decision-maker to be of the same classification level Whether Services Australia’s ‘vetting process’ was appropriate Whether Services Australia properly informed the complainant of his review rights and/or timeframes for review | Personal | 23 February 2024 | Services Australia gave proper consideration to the issues raised by the complainant in his request for an internal review. The original decision-maker and internal review decision-maker were the same classification level, which is not best practice. The vetting process of Services Australia in reviewing the draft internal review decision should be improved to better reflect the objects of the FOI Act. Services Australia properly informed the complainant of his review rights and the timeframes for seeking review. | Two suggestions made:
| Not applicable. | Not applicable. |
Department of Health and Aged Care | Whether the Department took reasonable steps to assist the complainant revise the request so that the practical refusal reason no longer existed Whether, as a result of not engaging in the request consultation process, the Department was unable to properly identify the documents within the scope of the FOI request | Non-personal | 22 January 2024 | The complaint was substantiated. | Two recommendations were made:
| Accepted; to implement. | |
NBN Co Ltd | Whether NBN was required to publish a decision to the ‘Right to Know’ website after administrative access to requested documents was provided | Non-personal | 22 January 2024 | The complaint was substantiated | Three recommendations were made:
Two suggestions were made:
| Accepted; to implement. | |
Australian Taxation Office | Whether the ATO processed the request in a manner which was improper Whether the ATO did so as a way of delaying access to documents required for separate legal proceedings | Personal | 18 December 2023 | Neither aspect of the complaint was substantiated. | No recommendations made. | Not applicable. | Not applicable. |
Department of Industry, Science and Resources | Whether the Department should have transferred the request under s 16 rather than refusing the request under s 24A, on the basis that no documents exist | Non-personal | 8 December 2023 | The Department attempted to facilitate transfer of the complainant’s request under s 16 of the FOI Act and the appropriate agency refused to accept the transfer. The Department therefore had no option but to process the request, making its original decision that no documents exist under s 24A of the FOI Act. However, the Department did not give consideration to the possible transfer of the request under s 16 of the FOI Act early enough in the processing of the request. The amount of time remaining to process the request was a relevant consideration of the appropriate agency to its decision not to accept transfer of the request. The Department also did not seek the applicant’s agreement to an extension of the statutory processing timeframe under s 15AA of the FOI Act, which may have facilitated the appropriate agency’s agreement to accept transfer of the request, and The Department did not take reasonable steps to assist the complainant to direct their request to the appropriate agency during the processing of the request. | No recommendations were made. The Department acknowledged that it should have attempted transfer of the request to the receiving agency at an earlier stage of the processing of the request and because the Department had also already implemented remedial measures in relation to its processing of FOI requests where transfer under s 16 is contemplated. | Not applicable. | Not applicable. |
Digital Transformation Agency | Whether, in issuing the charges notice, the Agency was acting in accordance with the ‘lowest reasonable cost’ principle Whether the Agency’s process for considering if it was in the general public interest to waive the charge was consistent with the FOI Act and Guidelines Whether the Agency considered the payment of the charge (in part or in full) waived his review rights | Non-personal | 6 December 2023 | The Agency, at the time of processing the complainant’s FOI request, did not properly comply with its obligations under s 29 of the FOI Act. The Agency did not engage in practices appropriate to advancing the objects of the FOI Act, and particularly, to facilitate and promote public access to information, promptly and at the lowest reasonable cost (s 3(4) of the FOI Act). | Four recommendations were made:
| Accepted; to implement. | |
Department of Home Affairs | Whether the Department delayed processing the complainant’s FOI request Whether the substance of the information released by the Department did not meet the terms of the complainant’s revised request | Non-personal | 30 November 2023 | The Department did not comply with s 15(5)(b) of the FOI Act when processing the complainant’s FOI request dated 29 March 2021, and The Department misunderstood the scope of the complainant's revised request, resulting in the Department initially providing access to a document which did not meet the terms of the complainant’s revised request and resulted in further delays in processing the request. | No recommendations were made. The OAIC did not make any formal recommendations on the basis that similar issues to those raised in this complaint have already been considered and addressed as part of the Commissioner Initiated Investigation into the Department of Home Affairs (CII),[3] as well as in other FOI complaints.[4] The OAIC is continuing to monitor the Department’s compliance with statutory timeframes to ensure that the recommendations of the CII and other complaints are implemented and operationalised. Two suggestions were made:
| Not applicable. | Not applicable. |
Comcare | Whether the Agency complied with its obligations under s 11C of the FOI in relation to publication of information in its disclosure log Whether the Agency complied with its obligations under s 8(2) of the FOI in relation to publication of information on IPS | Non-personal | 27 July 2023 | At the time of processing the complainant’s request, the Agency complied with its obligations under s 11C of the FOI Act. The Agency's practices in relation to the publication of information under ss 8(2) and 11C of the FOI Act could be improved | One recommendation was made:
Three suggestions were made:
| Accepted; to implement. | |
Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet | Whether misinterpretation of FOI request resulted in misdirection of request to incorrect Department Adequacy of the Department’s policies and procedures to distinguish FOI requests received via shared email between the Department and the Office of the Prime Minister (PMO) Failure to consider transferring the FOI request Whether the Department’s practices are consistent with the objects of the FOI Act in particular s 3(4) and relationship between ss 16 and 24AB of FOI Act | Non-personal | 14 June 2023 | The Department, at the time of processing the complainant’s FOI request, did not engage in practices appropriate to advancing the objects of the FOI Act, and particularly, to facilitate and promote public access to information, promptly and at the lowest reasonable costs (s 3(4) of the FOI Act). This is in circumstances where the Department:
| Four recommendations were made:
Two suggestions were made:
| Acknowledged; Recommendations implemented. Suggestions not implemented. Exploring implementation of Suggestion 2. | No further action to be taken. |
Department of Health and Ageing | Whether it is appropriate for the Department to notify a complainant it will consider a FOI request withdrawn if a response to its correspondence is not received within a specified timeframe under s15(5) Whether a 14 day consultation processes in the terms of s24AB of the FOI was appropriate and notification the FOI request would be deemed withdrawn if a response was not received within 2 days | Non-personal | 19 May 2023 | It was inappropriate for the Department to state in correspondence that if the complainant did not reply to its correspondence within 2 days, the complainant’s FOI request would be considered withdrawn. It is contrary to s 15(5) of the FOI Act to treat a request as ‘withdrawn’ if an applicant does not respond to correspondence from the Department within a specified timeframe. The Department did not engage in a practical refusal process for likely exempt documents under s24AB and therefore a 14 day consultation period was not required. In issue was whether it was appropriate for the Department to advise the complainant it would deem the FOI request withdrawn if it did not receive a response within 2 days. For the reasons outlined above, it was inappropriate for the Department to state it would deem the FOI request withdrawn within a specified timeframe. | Five recommendations were made: 1.The Department issue a statement to staff engaged in processing FOI requests highlighting the Department’s obligation under the FOI Act to process requests that comply with the formal requirements prescribed by ss 15(2) and (2A) and that, other than in the circumstances prescribed by s 24AB(7), an FOI request cannot be proactively taken by the Department to have been withdrawn. 2. The Department provide general training to its staff engaged in processing FOI requests with a particular focus on the obligation to process FOI requests and the limited circumstances in which a FOI request is, under the FOI Act, taken to have been withdrawn. 3. The Department update its policies, training manuals and/or guidance material as appropriate. 4. The Department undertake an audit of the processing of FOI requests received in the 6 month period following the implementation of the above recommendations to ascertain if there have been any other instances of an applicant being told that their FOI request would be taken to be withdrawn if a response to its correspondence is not received within a specified timeframe. 5. The Department report the audit results to the OAIC. | Accepted; to implement. | |
Department of Home Affairs | Whether the Department failed to assist the complainant to revise an FOI request under s 24AB(3) in relation to a practical refusal request consultation process Whether the Department acted consistent with the objects of the FOI Act | Personal | 3 May 2023 | At the time of processing the complainant’s FOI request, the Department failed to fulfil its duties under s 24AB(3). More particularly, the Department through its contact officer failed to take reasonable steps to assist the complainant to revise their FOI request so that the practical refusal reason which the Department said existed ceased to exist. This failure was inconsistent with the objects of the FOI Act, particularly the object in s 3(4) to facilitate and promote public access to information promptly and at the lowest reasonable cost. The Department could have avoided this failure and better promoted the object of the Act had it adequately taken into account, and acted consistently with, the Guidelines issued under s 93A of the FOI Act (particularly paragraphs 3.131 and 3.133). | Four recommendations were made:
| Noted by the Department. | |
Department of Veterans’ Affairs | Whether a notice of decision under s 26 of the FOI Act should include the signature, name and position of the person who has made the decision Compliance with Disclosure log obligations | Non-personal | 22 June 2022 | There was a period of time during which the Department was clearly non-compliant with the requirements of s 26(1)(b) of the FOI Act. The Department has altered its earlier practice so that the given name, position number and designation of the relevant staff member is included in a decision. In the Department’s specific circumstances, this altered practice is reasonable and results in the giving of valid notices under s 26. The Department is complying with the requirements of s 11C(3) of the FOI Act. | No recommendations were made. One suggestion was made:
| Not applicable. | Not applicable. |
Australian Federal Police | Compliance with statutory timeframes for processing FOI request Documents relevant to the request not appropriately stored Handling of documents relevant to the request | Non-personal | 17 June 2022 | The AFP’s failure to ensure that documents were stored in accordance with AFP records management procedures resulted in the AFP failing to process the complainant’s FOI request within the statutory timeframe prescribed by s 15(5)(b) of the FOI Act. It does not appear that there existed, or exist, sufficient escalation processes and procedures in place to enable the AFP’s FOI team to address circumstances of the kind which impacted on the processing of the complainant’s FOI request. Remainder of the FOI complaint outside of the jurisdiction of the FOI Act. | One recommendation was made:
Two suggestions were made:
| Accepted and implemented. | No further action to be taken. |
Australian Electoral Commission | Assistance provided to applicant during the consultation process Compliance with the timeframe for notification of the Commission’s decision as set out in the related Information Commissioner decision | Non-personal | 15 June 2022 | At the time of processing the FOI request, when corresponding with the complainant, the Commission did not engage in practices appropriate to advancing the objects of the FOI Act. The Commission did not comply with the timeframe set out in the Information Commissioner review decision and so failed to comply with s 55N of the FOI Act | Four recommendations were made:
| Accepted and implemented. | No further action to be taken. |
National Disability Insurance Agency | Acknowledgment of FOI requests in accordance with statutory timeframes Documents relevant to requests sent to incorrect postal address | Non-personal | 15 June 2022 | The NDIA failed to acknowledge the complainant’s FOI requests within the statutory timeframes set out in s 15(5)(a) of the FOI Act. The documents requested by the complainant under the FOI Act being sent to the incorrect postal address, despite the complainant’s notification of the change of address being provided to the NDIA, resulted in a failure to comply with s 15(5)(b) of the FOI Act. | No recommendations were made. | Not applicable. | Not applicable. |
Australian Skills Quality Authority | Whether required assistance was provided to the applicant during the consultation process | Non-personal | 14 June 2022 | The purported consultation process was more appropriately considered in the related IC review process. ASQA was not under any obligation to conduct a request consultation process under s 24AB of the FOI Act in relation to the internal review application. The internal review applicant to revise the scope of the request was reasonable in the circumstances. | Three suggestions were made: Update policies and procedures to include:
| Not applicable. | Not applicable. |
Veterans’ Review Board | Compliance with statutory timeframes for processing FOI request | Personal | 14 March 2022 | The VRB did not comply with the statutory processing period. The non-compliance was attributable to an isolated IT fault which has been rectified, and that once the VRB was made aware of the FOI request by the OAIC, it took reasonable steps to process the FOI request. | No recommendations were made. | Not applicable. | Not applicable. |
Australian Trade and Investments Commission | Extending the processing under s 15(6) of the FOI Act to conduct third party consultation and imposing a charge | Personal and non-personal | 2 March 2022 | Complaint not substantiated. | No recommendations were made. | Not applicable. | Not applicable. |
National Disability Insurance Agency | Reasonable assistance provided to the applicant to lodge a valid FOI request | Personal | 10 February 2022 | The NDIA had not documented, operationalised processes and procedures to provide reasonable assistance to applicants under s 15(3) of the FOI Act | Two recommendations were made:
| Accepted and implemented. | No further action to be taken. |
Services Australia | Search and retrieval processes and identification of documents within the scope of a request | Personal | 10 February 2022 | At the time of the complainant’s original FOI request, the documented search and retrieval processes that Services Australia had in place did not specifically draw officers’ attention to the requirement to identify relevant call recordings. resulted in the omission of relevant call recordings from the agency’s original FOI decision in this case. The changes made to Services Australia’s search and retrieval template, to specifically refer to call recordings, will reduce the likelihood of call recordings being omitted from responses to FOI requests made to the agency in the future. | One recommendation was made:
| Accepted and implemented. | No further action to be taken. |
Attorney-General’s Department | Acceptance of transfers under s 16 of the FOI Act | Non-personal | 13 December 2021 | The Department did not correctly apply the statutory test in s 16(1) of the FOI Act when it agreed to accept the transfer of an FOI request from the Attorney-General. | Two recommendations were made:
| Accepted and implemented. | No further action to be taken. |
Australian Digital Health Agency | Acknowledgment of FOI requests in accordance with statutory timeframes Extending the processing under s 15(6) of the FOI Act to conduct third party consultation Delay in responding to FOI request | Non-personal | 2 December 2021 |
| Four recommendations were made:
| Accepted and implemented. | No further action to be taken. |
Department of Home Affairs (17 matters) | Compliance with statutory timeframes for processing FOI request | Personal | 25 November 2021 | The Department did not comply with the statutory processing period. | Four recommendations were made:
| Noted by the Department. | |
Department of Foreign Affairs | Compliance with statutory processing periods Administrative access arrangements Exercising a discretion to impose a charge Incorrect refund form provided | Non-personal | 11 November 2021 | The Department did not comply with the statutory processing period. No adverse findings or recommendations made in relation to remaining issues. | Three recommendations were made:
3. The Department should provide an implementation report, including statistical evidence and analysis to demonstrate the effectiveness of the implementation of the compliance action plan in recommendation 2 and whether the reasons for non- compliance identified in the compliance action plan have been rectified. | Accepted and implemented. | No further action to be taken. |
Australian Federal Police | Compliance with statutory timeframes for processing FOI request | Personal | 27 October 2021 | The AFP did not comply with the statutory processing timeframe which is attributable to:
| Two recommendations were made:
2. The AFP should provide an implementation report to the OAIC, providing statistical evidence and analysis to demonstrate the effectiveness of the implementation of the compliance action plan in recommendation 1 and whether the reasons for non-compliance identified in the compliance action plan have been rectified. | Accepted and implemented. | No further Action to be taken. |
Department of Veterans’ Affairs | Compliance with statutory timeframes for processing FOI request | Personal | 19 October 2021 | The Department complied with the statutory processing timeframes. | No recommendations were made. | Not applicable. | Not applicable. |
Department of Veterans' Affairs | Compliance with statutory timeframes for processing FOI request | Personal | 12 October 2021 | The Department did not comply with the statutory processing period due to an internal administrative error identifying the FOI request where the FOI request had delay in providing it to the FOI team. | No recommendations were made. Given the steps that the Department took upon becoming aware of the FOI request, including engaging with and providing an explanation to the complainant, processing the request and apologising to the complainant, no recommendations were made. | Accepted. | No further Action to be taken. |
Services Australia | Compliance with Information Publication Scheme (IPS) Imposition of charges for documents held on the IPS requested under the FOI Act | Non-personal | 7 October 2021 | Services Australia complied with the Act when it listed titles of operational documents on its IPS. However, Services Australia’s process of requiring individuals to lodge an FOI request for access to documents is only appropriate where the agency has a robust and reliable process to routinely consider whether the reasons for not publishing the documents continue to apply. | Two recommendations were made: 1. Develop and implement a system to ensure that:
2. Develop and implement systems and processes to ensure that, where Services Australia exercises its discretion to impose a charge under s 29, that decision is consistent with both the relevant statutory provisions, the FOI Guidelines and its obligations under Part II of the FOI Act. | Accepted and implemented. | No further action to be taken. |
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet | Compliance with statutory timeframes for processing an FOI request | Non-personal | 5 October 2021 | The Department did not comply with the statutory processing timeframe. | Two recommendations were made:
| Accepted findings. Response received. | |
Department of Veterans' Affairs | Compliance with statutory timeframes for processing FOI requests Compliance with s 29 of the FOI Act | Non-personal | 24 September 2021 | The Department did not comply with the statutory processing timeframes in relation to three FOI requests. The Department did not comply with s 29(6) in relation to one FOI request | One recommendation was made: 1. The Department develops and makes available to staff an operational manual for processing FOI requests that should include, at a minimum, the steps that will be taken to ensure compliance with statutory processing requirements, including in relation to:
| Accepted; to implement. | No further action to be undertaken. |
Australian Building and Construction Commission | Extending the statutory processing period to conduct third party consultation and related communication with the FOI applicant Transfer of FOI requests under s 16 of the FOI Act | Non-personal | 22 September 2021 | It was open to the ABCC to extend the processing timeframe for the FOI request to conduct consultation with third parties under s 27A of the FOI Act, even in circumstances where the subsequent consideration of the documents resulted in a conclusion that consultation was not necessary because the documents initially considered in scope were found to be outside the scope of the request. However, it was not open to the ABCC to extend the timeframe in circumstances where the documents had not been identified or considered against the requirements of s 27A. The consent of the FOI applicant is not required for the transfer of a request under s 16 of the FOI Act. | Three recommendations were made: 1.The ABCC should provide guidance to FOI officers to ensure that, prior to extending the processing periods as permitted by s 15 of the FOI Act, proper consideration is given to the statutory prerequisites to the exercise of that power. 2. That the ABCC review its correspondence with FOI applicants to ensure that it is clear, accurate and not misleading. 3. That the ABCC implement systems and processes to ensure that the ABCC understands and adheres to FOI processing timeframes. | Accepted and implemented. | No further action to be taken. |
Services Australia | Compliance with Information Publication Scheme (IPS) Where Services Australia has decided not to publish the document – the reason why it is considered exempt should be published | Non-personal | 17 September 2021 | Services Australia was not required to list the applicable FOI Act exemption against the title of an unpublished document. Services Australia complied with the Act when it listed titles of operational documents on its IPS. However, the agency’s reliance on requests from the public to reconsider earlier decisions not to publish those documents, in the absence of a more systematic process, is not consistent with the ongoing obligations under Part II of the FOI Act. | One recommendation was made: 1. Develop and implement a system to ensure that:
| Accepted and implemented. | No further action to be taken. |
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade | Impartiality of the Internal Review decision maker | Non-personal | 17 September 2021 | No evidence before the Commissioner which supported the complainant’s contentions. | No recommendations were made. | Not applicable. | Not applicable. |
Services Australia | Compliance with Information Publication Scheme (IPS) Imposition of charges for documents held on the IPS requested under the FOI Act | Non-personal | 8 September 2021 | At the time of the complaint, Services Australia did not meet its obligation to publish operational information as required by s 8(2)(j). Services Australia failed to have adequate systems and processes in place to confirm that business areas were appropriately considering their IPS obligations at the time that Operational Blueprints (OPBs) were created or to ensure that documents appropriately categorised under s 8C were regularly reviewed to consider whether s 8C continued to apply. Services Australia did not deliberately withhold documents that were required to be published under the IPS for the purpose of improperly imposing a charge in relation to access requests for those documents, as alleged in the complaint. | Two recommendations were made: 1. Develop and implement a system to ensure that:
2. Services Australia staff adheres to current internal policies to consider the potential administrative release of OBPs in response to access requests before considering whether a charge should be applied under s 29 of the FOI Act for access to those materials. | Accepted and implemented. | No further action to be taken. |
Department of Defence | The Department’s consultation process conducted during the processing of an FOI request | Personal information | 17 February 2021 | The Department’s FOI manual sets out the procedure for conducting consultations with third parties. The Department did not consult with the complainant where it was ‘possible to consult’ and ‘reasonably practicable’ to do so. | One recommendation was made: 1. Issue a statement to staff engaged in processing FOI requests highlighting the Department’s obligations under the FOI Act to consider whether a person might reasonably wish to make a contention that the document is conditionally exempt under s 47F of the FOI Act (s27A(1)(b)). The statement should highlight the importance of following the Department’s processes and procedures when processing and making decisions on FOI requests where third party information is contained within documents that fall within the scope of an FOI request. | Accepted and implemented. | No further action to be taken. |
Department of Defence | Collection of charges amounts | Non-personal | 17 December 2020 | The Department’s process that required an invoice to be raised before allowing a FOI applicant to make a payment in order to recommence the processing period is inefficient and does not facilitate and promote public access to information, promptly and at the lowest reasonable cost. | Two suggestions were made:
| Accepted and suggestions implemented. | No further action to be taken. |
Department of Home Affairs This investigation was a Commissioner Initiated Investigation under s 69(2) of the FOI Act. A copy of the Report is available here. | Compliance with statutory timeframes for processing FOI request for non-personal information | Non-personal | 11 December 2020 | The information considered in this investigation indicates that the Department does not have adequate governance and systems of accountability in place to ensure compliance with statutory time frames for processing FOI requests for non-personal information. The other key findings from my investigation may be summarised as follows:
There are inadequate policies and procedures in place to support compliance with the requirements of section 6C of the FOI Act. | Four recommendations were made:
The Department:
New staff joining the FOI Section should be trained within 2 weeks of commencing in the FOI Section.
The Department undertakes an audit of the processing of FOI requests for non-personal information to assess whether Recommendations 2 and 3 have been implemented and operationalised and whether those actions have been sufficient to address the issues identified in this CII. The audit should be undertaken either by the Department’s internal audit committee or by an external auditor, as determined by the Department. A copy of the audit report is to be provided to the OAIC. | Accepted; to implement. | |
The Australian National University (the ANU) | Compliance with statutory timeframes. Communication regarding the processing delays | Personal information | 14 September 2020 | The statutory timeframe was not extended by agreement under s 15AA, or as a result of consultation (ss 15(6), 15(8), 26A, 27, 27A), or under ss 15AB or 15AC. The ANU exceeded the statutory processing period by 26 days without authority. The ANU updated the complainant about the processing of the request and provided reasons for the delay. | Two recommendations were made: 1. The ANU should update its ‘Guideline 1.15: Freedom of Information processing checklist’ and ‘Guideline 1.18: Freedom of Information request processing timeframes’ to require staff to conduct an early assessment of whether an extension of time may be required and if so, to seek agreement from the FOI applicant to extend the processing period under s 15AA. 2. The ANU should update its ‘Guideline 1.15: Freedom of Information request processing checklist’ and ‘Guideline 1.18: Freedom of Information request processing timeframes’, to require staff to consider whether it is appropriate to seek an extension of time pursuant to s 15AB where an applicant has not agreed to extend the statutory processing period under s 15AA, or to seek an extension of time from the Information Commissioner under s 15AC where a decision about an FOI request has not been provided to the applicant within the statutory processing period. | Accepted and implemented. | No further action to be taken. |
Airservices Australia | Acknowledgment of FOI requests in accordance with statutory timeframes Taking reasonable steps to conduct searches for documents within scope of the FOI request Withholding documents which fell within the scope of the FOI request Compliance with s 26 of the FOI Act | Personal information | 23 April 2020 | At the time of the request, Airservices did not have a formalised process by which employees could access their personnel records. Airservices did not comply with ss 15(5)(a) and 26 of the FOI Act. During the processing of the request Airservices did not take reasonable steps to identify documents within the scope of the request. Airservices reduced the scope of the FOI request without agreement from the applicant. | Four recommendations were made:
| Accepted and implemented. | No further action to be taken. |
Services Australia[9] | Consultation process under s 24AB of the FOI Act and internal review process | Personal information | 18 February 2020 | Consultation process was more appropriately considered in the related IC review process and subsequent decision by the Information Commissioner under s 55K of the FOI Act. Services Australia’s internal review process complied with s 54C of the FOI Act. | No recommendations were made. | Not applicable. | Not applicable. |
Department of Home Affairs | Compliance with statutory processing periods[10] | Non-personal information | 19 December 2019 | The Department did not comply with | No recommendations were made. The Information Commissioner deferred making any recommendations until the outcome of the Commissioner Initiated Investigation into the Department of Home Affair’s compliance with statutory processing periods for non-personal FOI requests. [11] | Not applicable. | No further action to be taken pending the outcome of the CII. |
Approach to the interpretation of the scope of FOI requests Approach to processing FOI requests relating to the OCI System Compliance with s 24AB of the FOI Act Combining FOI requests under s 24(2) of the FOI Act Imposition of a charge Payment of charges Disclosure Log content Delays in the provision of documents | Non-personal and personal | 5 December 2019 | Services Australia took a narrow approach to requests for information and did not attribute the plain English meanings to the terms used by applicants when that meaning was ascertainable in satisfaction of paragraph 15(2)(b) of the Act. Services Australia did not comply with the request consultation process under s 24AB. Services Australia did not take into consideration relevant public interest factors when deciding if applying charges is appropriate At the time the decisions were made in the relevant FOI requests, Services Australia’s processes for collecting charges imposed under the FOI Act were inconsistent with the objects of the Act Services Australia did not comply with its obligations under s 11C(6) of the FOI Act in relation to the maintenance of its disclosure log. Services Australia did not have clear guidance for its FOI officers on:
| Seven recommendations were made:
| Accepted and implemented. | No further action to be taken. | |
Services Australia[15] | Acknowledgment of FOI requests in accordance with statutory timeframes | Personal and non-personal information | 22 November 2019 | Delay in acknowledging the FOI requests was due to the complainant sending the FOI request as part of ‘shared’ correspondence addressed to the aged care pension claims nominated PO Box rather than addressed to the FOI or central PO Box, and human error in categorising the documents as FOI requests at the mail sorting stage. | Two recommendations were made:
| Accepted and implemented. | No further action to be taken. |
Australian Federal Police | Compliance with statutory processing timeframes | Non-personal information | 22 November 2019 | The AFP did not comply with the statutory processing periods in processing 34.44% of FOI requests in the 2017-18 financial year and 53.08% in the 2018-19 financial year. | Three recommendations were made:
| Accepted and implemented. | No further action to be taken. |
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet | Compliance with statutory processing timeframes | Non-personal information | 22 November 2019 | The Department did not comply with the statutory processing periods in processing 35.56% of FOI requests in the 2017-18 financial year and 72.65% in the 2018-19 financial year. | Four recommendations were made:
| Accepted and implemented. | No further action to be taken. |
[1] As at 12 July 2022.
[2] See report available at Commissioner initiated investigation into the Department of Home Affairs | OAIC.
[3] See the OAIC’s Freedom of Information Investigation Outcome’s table, specifically the Notice on Completions of 25 November 2021 and 3 May 2023.
[4] Suggestion made under s 87(d) of the FOI Act.
[5] Suggestions made under s 87(d) of the FOI Act.
[6] Suggestion made pursuant to s 87(d) of the FOI Act.
[7] Suggestions made pursuant to s 87(d) of the FOI Act.
[8] At the time this investigation commenced the responsible department was the Department of Human Services. On 29 May 2019, the Administrative Arrangements Order established Services Australia.
[9] This investigation combined 11 FOI complaints made under s 70 of the FOI Act. Due to the overlapping issue raised in each FOI complaint the Information Commissioner progressed all 11 complaints together.
[10] Each FOI request forms a case study in the Commissioner Initiated Investigation into the Department of Home Affairs compliance with statutory processing periods for non-personal requests for information.
[11] At the time this investigation commenced the responsible department was the Department of Human Services. On 29 May 2019, the Administrative Arrangements Order established Services Australia.
[12] This investigation combined three FOI complaints made under s 70 of the FOI Act. Due to the overlapping issues raised in each FOI complaint the Information Commissioner progressed all three complaints under one investigation.
[13] On 8 July 2020, the Information Commissioner granted an extension of time to respond to recommendation six until 30 October 2020.
[14] At the time this investigation commenced the responsible department was the Department of Human Services. On 29 May 2019, the Administrative Arrangements Order established Services Australia.
[15] On 8 July 2020, the Information Commissioner granted an extension of time to respond to recommendation six until 30 October 2020.
[16] At the time this investigation commenced the responsible department was the Department of Human Services. On 29 May 2019, the Administrative Arrangements Order established Services Australia.