DEFENCE FOI 1001/23/24
STATEMENT OF REASONS UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1982
1.
I refer to the request by James Smith (the applicant), dated and received on
19 June 2024 by the Department of Defence (Defence), for access to the following
documents under the
Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) (FOI Act):
…please provide a copy of Defence Force Recruiting - Recruiting Services Contract
between Department of Defence and Adecco Australia Pty Ltd (ABN 91 006 253 336)
contract ID CN3923195 Agency Reference ID:4600042630 dated around October or
November 2022, including all and any annexures, appendices, attachments and the
like.
See: https://www.tenders.gov.au/Cn/Show/7ee5b746-f6e5-4dcb-86e6-d3268dc6c477
Costing/profit information can be redacted however all other information and
materials should be provided.
Background
2.
On 26 June 2024, Defence formally consulted with the applicant in accordance with
section 24AB of the FOI Act. The notice provided to the applicant requested a
revision of scope and included a statement outlining Defence’s intention to refuse the
request if the scope was not revised, on the grounds that a practical refusal reason
existed in relation to it. On the same day, the applicant declined to revise the scope of
the request.
FOI decision maker
3.
I am the authorised officer pursuant to section 23 of the FOI Act to make a decision on
this FOI request.
Decision
4.
I have decided to refuse this request for access under section 24AA(1)(a)(i) of the
FOI Act on the basis that the work involved in progressing this request would
substantially and unreasonably divert resources of the Department from its other
operations.
Material taken into account
5.
In making my decision, I have had regard to:
a. the terms of the request;
b. the volume of documents within the scope of the request;
c. relevant provisions of the FOI Act; and
d. the Guidelines published by the Office of the Australian Information
Commissioner under section 93A of the FOI Act (the Guidelines).
2
REASONS FOR DECISION
Section 24AA – When does a practical refusal reason exist?
6.
Section 24AA of the FOI Act outlines when a practical refusal reason exists for the
purposes of section 24. Relevantly, section 24AA(1)(a) provides that a practical
refusal reason exists if:
(a) the work involved in processing the request:
i.
in the case of an agency—would substantially and unreasonably divert
the resources of the agency from its other operations
7.
Section 24(1) of the FOI Act provides that:
If an agency or Minister is satisfied, when dealing with a request for a document,
that a practical refusal reason exists in relation to the request (see section 24AA),
the agency or Minister:
(a) must undertake a request consultation process (see section 24AB); and
(b) if, after the request consultation process, the agency or Minister is
satisfied that the practical refusal reason still exists—the agency or
Minister may refuse to give access to the document in accordance with the
request.
8.
In considering whether a practical refusal reason exists I had regard to the matters set
out in section 24AA(2), namely the resources required to perform the following
activities:
a. identifying, locating or collating documents within the filing system of the
agency or minister;
b. examining the documents;
c. deciding whether to grant, refuse or defer access;
d. consulting with other parties;
e. redacting exempt material from the documents; and
f. notifying a final decision to the applicant.
9.
Advice was received from Defence Force Recruiting (DFR) that there are over 57
documents within scope, with one document consisting of over 4500 pages. Using a
conservative 2 minutes to review each page, it would take one full time staff member
150 hours, or 4 weeks, to consider this document and its annexes.
10.
In
VMQD and
Commissioner of Taxation (Freedom of information) [2018] AATA
4619 (17 December 2018) at paragraph 101, the Senior Tribunal Member Puplick
stated that “what constitutes valid practical refusal grounds is thus agency specific and
resource dependent. Nevertheless, for any agency, a burden in excess of 200 hours
would almost certainly make the threshold of a rational and objective test”. I have not
included in this estimate, the time required in deciding whether to grant, refuse or
3
defer access, and redacting any exempt material from the documents. I further note
that only one of the 57 documents in scope has been considered, and therefore regard
the actual time required to fulfil this request to be considerably higher than the
estimate detailed in paragraph 9.
11.
I am of the view that if this request were to be processed in its current form, it would
have a substantial and adverse effect on DFR’s ability to perform its usual functions.
12.
Taking all the above into consideration I deem that the work required to progress the
request would substantially and unreasonably divert the resources of the Department
and on this basis I refuse access under section 24AA(1)(a)(i) of the FOI Act.
anna.w Digitally signed
by anna.whipp
hipp
Date: 2024.07.10
17:02:04 +10'00'
Anna Whipp Accredited Decision Maker
Assistant Secretary
HR Business Partners
