Download original attachment
(PDF file)

This is an HTML version of an attachment to the Freedom of Information request 'FOI review and complaint documents August 2024'.


FOIREQ24/00508     1775

FOIREQ24/00508     1776
FOIREQ24/00508     1777
 
FOIREQ24/00330   051
 
On 7 September 2023, the OAIC sought clarification from the Department in respect 
of its response of 29 August 2023. On 27 September 2023, the Department provided a 
further response. 
A copy of the Department’s response has been provided to the complainant for a 
response. Once a response is received, the OAIC will proceed to completing its 
investigation.  
On completing an investigation, the Information Commissioner will provide a ‘Notice 
on completion’ to the Department and to the complainant pursuant to s 86 of the FOI 
Act. The Information Commissioner’s notice must include the investigation results, 
the investigation recommendations (if any), the reasons for those results and any 
recommendations (s 86(2)). The ‘investigation results’ under s 87 are: 
•  the matters that the Information Commissioner has investigated 
•  any opinion that the Information Commissioner has formed in relation to those 
matters 
•  any conclusions that the Information Commissioner has reached 
•  any suggestions that the Information Commissioner believes might improve 
the agency’s processes 
•  any other information of which the Information Commissioner believes the 
agency should be aware. 
The Department’s submissions may be provided to the complainant for their review 
and comment or referred to in the Notice on completion.  
The outcome of the investigation will be published on the OAIC's website with any 
comments that the Department wishes to give under s 86(3) of the FOI Act. 
Further information about the process in an FOI complaint can be found in Part 11 of 
the FOI Guidelines. We note that the OAIC may seek further information from the 
Department once a response is received from the complainant. 
If you would like to discuss this matter, please contact Naoimh Donaghy on 02 9297 
9072 or email xxxxx@xxxx.xxx.xx. Please quote the reference number above. 
 
 
 
2 
 
 

FOIREQ24/00508     1778
 
FOIREQ24/00330   052
 
Yours sincerely 
 
Jackie Scolyer 
Acting Director Reviews and Investigations 
Freedom of Information 
23 October 2023   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3 
 
 

FOIREQ24/00508     1779
FOIREQ24/00508     1780
FOIREQ24/00330   054
 
−  the reasons for the investigation results and the making of the 
investigation recommendations. 
 
Summary of investigation results and recommendations 
5.  I have concluded that throughout the process – from issuing the initial charges 
notice of 9 June 2021 and through the FOI Complaint’s process – the Department 
has acted inconsistently with the FOI Act, the Freedom of Information (Charges) 
Regulations 2019 (Charges Regulations), and/or FOI Guidelines in respect of 
finding the complainant liable to pay a charge in relation to s 22 FOI request/s. 
My finding that the Department failed to provide adequate assistance to the 
complainant to make a payment of a charge reflects a failing by the Department 
to act consistently with the FOI Act and/or FOI Guidelines from the initial 
exercise of charges functions by the Department and continuing.  
6.  In consideration of the above, I make the following recommendations pursuant 
to s 88 of the FOI Act: 
a.  By 26 August 2024, the Department is to update its FOI Guidelines/Procedure 
Manual such that it better reflects the Charges process in accordance with the 
FOI Act and/or FOI Guidelines. In particular, the amendments should highlight 
the discretionary nature of charges, the expectation that sampling will occur 
when using a charges calculator, and the ongoing obligation of the 
Department to continue to be satisfied that the charge should be imposed.  
b.  By 25 November 2024, the Department’s FOI branch is to undergo training to 
ensure compliance with the updated FOI Guidelines/Procedure Manual. 
Evidence of the training is to be created and retained by the Department. 
7.  I have made the following suggestions under s 87(d) of the FOI Act: 
a.  By 25 March 2024, the Department give consideration to providing the 
complainant with a full refund of the deposit of $60, having particular regard 
to the findings above at [55]-[56]. 
b.  The Department is to provide an update to the OAIC as soon as practicable 
(but no later than by 25 March 2024) as to whether a full refund has been, or 
will be, provided. 
FOIREQ24/00508     1781
FOIREQ24/00330   055
 
Investigation results 
8.  Section 87 of the FOI Act provides for my investigation results to set out the 
matters that I have investigated and my opinions and conclusions about those 
matters. I have considered all the material provided by the Department and the 
complainant in this matter. 
 
The matters for investigation 
9.  The complaint has raised concerns that that the Department did not provide 
adequate assistance to s 22 so that s 22could pay a charge and secure the release 
of documents s 22 had requested under s 15 of the FOI Act. In my view, the 
nature of this FOI complaint gives rise to the consideration as to whether there 
was an ongoing obligation on the Department to assist the complainant, 
including giving consideration as to whether the complainant was liable to pay a 
charge.  
 
Whether the Department provided adequate assistance to the complainant to pay 
a charge 
Complainant’s allegation 
10.  In s 22 FOI complaint of 7 September 2021, the complainant stated that s 22 had 
made ‘numerous attempts via telephone and email to contact the department to 
make payment to therefore release documents under this FOI request, however 
they are not responding’. 
11.  On 26 October 2022, in response to inquiries from the OAIC, the complainant 
stated that when s 22 tried to make payment of the balance of the charge, s 22 
‘never received a call back our (sic.) email other than that the accounts team 
were not operating due to the ACT (Australian Capital Territory) lockdowns’.  
FOIREQ24/00508     1782
FOIREQ24/00330   056
Legislation and Guidelines1   
12. Section 3(4) of the FOI Act outlines the objects of the FOI Act to include
parliament’s intention that functions and powers given by the FOI Act are to be
‘performed and exercised, as far as possible, to facilitate and promote public
access to information, promptly and at the lowest reasonable cost’.
13. Section 29(1) of the FOI Act, and s 8 of the Charges Regulations, provide a
discretion for a charge to be imposed in respect of a request for access to a
document or the provision of access to a document under the FOI Act. Under
s 29(1)(f)(ii), within 30 days of being notified of the charge, a FOI applicant may
contend the charge has been wrongly assessed, should be reduced or not
imposed, or both.
14. The FOI Guidelines at [4.71] – [4.74] provides that a charges calculator cannot
produce an accurate estimate without accurate inputs. Where a decision is made
to use a charges calculator to estimate a charge, the agency should examine a
sample of the relevant documents and adjust the parameter accordingly.
15. The FOI Guidelines at [4.75] – [4.77] provides that where a large number of
documents have been identified in response to an FOI request and the agency
decides its appropriate to impose a charge, there is an expectation that the
agency or Minister will obtain an accurate estimate by sampling a reasonable
selection of relevant documents. A representative sample size of at least 10
percent is generally considered an appropriate sample size to assess the
processing time. Agencies and Ministers should assess the amount of time it will
take to search for and/or retrieve the documents held in the representative
sample, as well as the amount of time it will take to examine, consider any
exemptions that may apply, and prepare a decision for those documents.
16. Pursuant to s 29(4) of the FOI Act, if a FOI applicant contends the charge under s
29(1)(f)(ii), the agency may decide that the charge is to be reduced or not
imposed. This is, in effect, a discretion to determine whether a FOI applicant in
any particular case should have a liability to pay a charge imposed on them.
1   References to the FOI Act and the FOI Guidelines are to the Act and Guidelines as in force in the period 21 
April 2021, when the complainant made their FOI request, to 21 September 2021, when the Department 
made its substantive access refusal decision. In this case, the material part of the FOI Guidelines is Part 4. 
The relevant version of that Part is 1.8 which was in force from 9 February 2020 to present (see summary 
of version changes to s 93A guidelines: https://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-information/foi-
guidelines/summary-of-version-changes-to-s-93a-guidelines). 
FOIREQ24/00508     1783
FOIREQ24/00330   057
17. The FOI Guidelines at [4.56] provides that agencies or Ministers could include
payment options in the preliminary assessment notice to enable efficient
payment by applicants in the event that they do not wish to contest the charge.
18. The FOI Guidelines at [4.64] provides that payment of a charge does not
necessarily indicate the applicant agrees with the imposition or calculation of the
charge.
19. Section 9 of the Charges Regulations provides that if the agency decides that a
FOI applicant is liable to pay a charge, it may fix the amount to pay in respect of a
charge. Relevant to this matter, the amount of the charge is ascertained in
accordance with Schedule 1 of the Charges Regulations if all steps that are
necessary to enable a decision to be made on the request have been taken by
the agency.
20. The FOI Guidelines at [4.68] – [4.69] provides that the estimated charge must be
as fair and accurate as possible, and based upon the assumption that the agency
maintains a well-organised record keeping system that enables easy
identification and location of documents.
21. Section 10(2) of the Charges Regulations provides that if the amount fixed under
s 9 of the Charges Regulations in respect of a charge is more than the actual
amount that the FOI applicant would be liable to pay in respect of the charge,
the agency must adjust the estimate of the charge to the amount equal to the
actual amount.
22. The FOI Guidelines at [4.86] – [4.87] provide that it is open to the agency or
Minister to refund a deposit paid for access to a document if access is refused in
full. The agency should refund the deposit the same way it was paid.
The Department’s submissions 
23. On 1 November 2022, the OAIC conducted preliminary inquiries with the
Department pursuant to s 72 of the FOI Act. On 23 November 2022, the
Department provided a response to the OAIC’s preliminary inquiries as follows:
The Canberra lockdown commenced on 12/8/2021, shortly after the charge notice was issued 
to the applicant in relation to this FOI request.  The lockdown presented a range of challenges 
for the department and other entities. 
The department acted as quickly as possible to make a range of necessary arrangements to 
support operations during the shutdown, including provision for payments for FOI requests and 
other matters.  
FOIREQ24/00508     1784
FOIREQ24/00330   058
 
The department had more than 400 active FOI requests on hand (plus internal and IC reviews) 
at the end of the week in which this complaint was made to the OAIC.  Before the pandemic, 
the department generally had up to 30 active FOI requests on hand at a time.  The department 
was taking a range of steps to respond to the surge, including recruiting and training additional 
FOI case officers as quickly as possible but the sharp increase in the volume of requests and the 
impact of the pandemic on our workforce resulted in delays in processing. 
24.  On 23 August 2023, the OAIC conducted further preliminary inquiries. In 
response, on 29 August 2023, the Department relevantly confirmed that the 
complainant had paid the deposit of $60, but that the remaining balance of $180 
had not yet been paid.  
25.  On 25 September 2023, the OAIC conducted further preliminary inquiries. On 27 
September 2023, the Department provided a response in which it confirmed it 
had not refunded the deposit of $60 to the complainant. The Department stated: 
The assessment of charges included an amount of $60.00 for the work undertaken to search 
and retrieve documents relevant to s 22
 request. The department submits the 
quantum for search and retrieval of the documents is reasonable and proportionate, and does 
not exceed the actual amount the complainant was liable to pay. The applicant sought waiver 
of the charges decision on the basis of public interest (and did not raise financial hardship). In 
addition to considering the public interest, in exercising their discretion not to waive or reduce 
the charge, the authorised officer considered factors such as the time and effort to search and 
retrieve relevant documents (consistent with Tennant and the Australian Broadcasting 
Corporation [2014] AATA 252). … the complainant has not sought review of that decision. On 
that basis, the department would not be willing to refund the deposit.  
In the circumstances, it is not clear that reg 10 of the Freedom of Information (Charges) 
Regulations 2019 or paragraph [4.86] of the FOI Guidelines requires the department to refund 
the amount of the deposit. We also note that reg 12 sets out the circumstances in which the 
agency is required to refund a deposit, which do not appear to be applicable. 
26.  The Department further stated that it had not sought payment of the 
outstanding amount of $180. The Department submitted: 
The basis for the department to revisit the exercise of a discretion under the FOI Act by an 
authorised officer over 2 years after the decision not to waive the charges was made is not 
immediately clear, particularly as the department understands s 22
 complaint 
relates to s 22  inability to communicate with the department in order to pay the charges and 
s 22  had not sought review of the charges decision itself.  
However, in circumstances where the documents were found to be exempt in full from 
release,  the department will ‘waive’ the remaining balance of the charges ($180.00) on the 
basis that the total amount fixed prior to the decision would be more than the actual amount 
s 22  would have been liable to pay if access to the documents was provided (reg 10 of the FOI 
FOIREQ24/00508     1785
FOIREQ24/00330   059
 
Charges Regulations). We note that at the time of the charges decision, the decision to refuse 
access to all documents in full had not been made.   
27.  On 29 November 2023, the OAIC requested further information from the 
Department under s 76 of the FOI Act. In response, on 12 December 2023, the 
Department confirmed that it did not undertake sampling prior to issuing the 
notice pursuant to s 29(1) of the FOI Act (Charges Notice). The Department 
stated that the FOI Guidelines at [4.75] state that there is an expectation that 
sampling be undertaken where ‘a large number of documents have been 
identified’. The Department submitted that the complainant’s request only 
amounted to a ‘relatively small number (twelve) of documents’. The Department 
submitted that the original assumption of the estimate of assessment and 
redaction times per page were ‘low’ compared to the ‘common parameter’ 
referred to in the FOI Guidelines at [4.73]. The Department further submitted: 
The complainant’s contention seeking a wavier of charge (on 14 June 2021) and the internal 
review request (of 4 July 2021) were made on the grounds of public interest. As the 
complainant did not contend that the charges were excessive or incorrectly calculated, there 
was no specific reason for the department to reconsider the charge estimate for either its 
notice of decision to impose a charge dated 28 June 2021 or internal review decision dated 3 
August 2021.  
28.  Further, the Department submitted that when Canberra went into ‘lockdown’ 
due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the FOI Section’s hotline ‘could not be staffed’. 
Further, the Department’s Accounts Section, which is responsible for processing 
charges, was also working remotely during lockdown. As a result, changes were 
made to the Department’s usual processes and communication channels which 
appears to have cause confusion and contributed to delays in processing 
payments. 
29.  The Department further stated that it did not ‘understand the complaint to 
relate to the decision that the complainant was liable to pay a charge, but rather 
relates to the department’s failure to assist s 22 make a payment’. The 
Department acknowledged that it would have been appropriate to advise the 
complainant that the FOI Section’s hotline was unattended and provide 
alternative methods of contact as soon as practicable after the commencement 
of lockdown, and to have contacted the applicant immediately in response to s 22 
email of 31 August 2021; that being the email in which the complainant had ‘left 
numerous messages to make payment over the last 2 weeks’ and requested 
someone return s 22 call.  
FOIREQ24/00508     1786
FOIREQ24/00330   060
My opinions in relation to matter for investigation 
30. The Department appears to accept that it did not provide a timely response to
the complainant at the time of s 22 inquiries, primarily due to the COVID-19
imposed lockdown in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) commencing on 12
August 2021.
31. I acknowledge that the COVID-19 pandemic was unprecedent and resulted in
large parts of the community being quickly and unexpectedly sent into
lockdowns or put under ‘stay at home’ or ‘remote working’ orders from State
and Territory officials.
32. However, the Department is engaged in the exercise of statutory functions
relevant to a core function and as such it should have adequate protocols to
allow its staff to continue working remotely. This is particularly so in
circumstances where:
a. the Department was at the epicentre of information, news, and updates
about the COVID-19 pandemic and at the time of the lockdown, COVID-19 had
been at the forefront of the Australian public’s health concerns for a period of
approximately 18 months
b. the Department is a Federal agency with offices across Australia2, including
offices in both Victoria and New South Wales that had already undergone
significant periods of ‘remote working’
c. the Department has not adequately explained why the FOI Hotline was not
forwarded to another telephone when the lockdown commenced
d. from the documents before me, there is nothing to suggest that the
Department requested the complainant’s contact details so that payment
could be taken over the phone, and
e. the Department ought to have anticipated there would have been delays in
processing FOI requests during this period and considered seeking extensions
of time where appropriate and providing adequate oversight of requests
during this period.
2   State and territory offices | Australian Government Department of Health and Aged Care 
FOIREQ24/00508     1787
FOIREQ24/00330   061
33. Therefore, I place limited weight on the Department’s submissions.
34. In addition, despite being aware of the complainant’s concerns since September
2021, there is no evidence before me that the Department has subsequently
taken any steps to discuss the charge with the complainant nor explain the
process to either pay the outstanding amount, or to advise s 22 that s 22 was no
longer required to pay the charge.  In my view the circumstances require
proactive engagement with the applicant to demonstrate the Departments
commitment to the exercise of these statutory functions.
35. The Department’s lack of engagement with the complainant throughout the
request and FOI complaints process has led to significant and avoidable delays.
The Department’s approach is inconsistent with the objects of the FOI Act,
namely that the functions and powers given by the FOI Act are to be performed
and exercised, as far as possible, promptly (s 3(4) of the FOI Act).
36. Furthermore, for the reasons outlined below, it is clear to me that the
Department did not undertake appropriate processes to ensure the accuracy of
the estimate either at the time of the decision of 28 June 2021 (Charges
Decision) or the internal review decision (Charges IRD) of 3 August 2021.
37. The Department has confirmed that it did not undertake a sampling process and
incorrectly relies upon the FOI Guidelines at [4.75] to explain why it did not do
so. However, the Department ought to have had regard to the FOI Guidelines at
[4.74] which provides:
Where a decision is made to use a charges calculator to estimate a charge, the agency or 
minister should examine a sample of the relevant documents and adjust the parameters of the 
charges calculator accordingly. 
(my emphasis) 
38. The Department confirmed it utilised a charges calculator, yet did not undertake
sampling. This approach is inconsistent with the FOI Guidelines specifically at
[4.74].
39. Had the Department undertaken a sampling process in accordance with the FOI
Guidelines, the Department would have been aware that the ultimate outcome
of the substantive decision – that being, the complainant was not granted access
to any of the requested documents – prior to issuing the Charges Notice, Charges
Decision and/or the Charges IRD.
FOIREQ24/00508     1788
FOIREQ24/00330   062
 
40.  Insofar as the Department stated that there was ‘no specific reason’ for it to 
reconsider the charge estimate as the complainant had only requested a waiver 
of the charge, this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the internal review 
process.   
41.  The internal review process is a merits review process in which the Department 
is able to take a fresh look at its original decision, as per s 54C(3) of the FOI Act. 
This requires an internal review decision maker to be satisfied that the original 
decision was correct and preferable. In circumstances where the decision being 
reviewed pertains to s 29(4) of the FOI Act, this requires the decision-maker to 
be satisfied that the charge should be reduced or not imposed. While the 
applicant’s response under s 29(1)(f)(ii) certainly guides this process, the internal 
review decision-maker must first be satisfied that the charge has been correctly 
calculated.  
42.  In circumstances where, the Department is not satisfied that the preliminary 
estimate of a charge in the Charges Decision was accurate, I have made a 
suggestion of  refund to the applicant.   
43.  The objects of the FOI Act provide that the functions and powers given by the Act 
are to be performed and exercised, as far as possible, to facilitate and promote 
public access to information, “promptly” and “at the lowest reasonable cost”. As 
per the FOI Guidelines at [4.20], imposing a charge can deter members of the 
public from seeking access to documents and can delay access.  
44.  It is evident that the Department did not turn its mind to consider whether the 
decision on review was the correct and preferable decision. In my view, the 
Department’s approach to the charges process is inconsistent with the objects of 
the FOI Act, the FOI Guidelines at [4.114] - [4.115], as well as the broad 
discretion to consider other relevant matters under s 29(5) of the FOI Act.  
45.  Furthermore, s 10 of the Charges Regulations makes clear that the obligation to 
adjust a charge lies with the agency. An FOI applicant should not be required to 
continue to request a review of the charge once the agency ought to have 
become aware of the likely discrepancy between the estimated charge and the 
charge that constituted the 'actual amount' of processing the request.  
46.  In accordance with s 10(2) of the Charges Regulations, the Department was 
required to consider whether the estimate of charges is accurate to the work 
undertaken at the time of the access refusal decision. 
FOIREQ24/00508     1789
FOIREQ24/00330   063
 
47.  The Department did not do this. Instead, the Department’s access refusal 
decision of 21 September 2021 – in which it was decided that the complainant 
would not be provided access to any documents – states: 
Charges 
… 
You have paid a deposit of $60.00. The outstanding balance of your charge is $180.00. Your 
payment for the outstanding balance is $180.00. Your payment for the outstanding balance of 
charges should be received within 30 days by way of cheque (made payable to the Department 
of Health), money order or credit care. 
48.  The initial estimate of charge was $240. The paragraph extracted at [47] makes 
clear that the Department took no steps to review or adjust the estimate of 
charge at the time of the access refusal decision, as it was still seeking $240 as a 
total payment of the charge. 
49.  Contrary to s 10(2) of the Charges Regulations, and to the Department’s 
submissions, it is clear that the Department continued to seek payment from the 
complainant for the outstanding amount as part of the access refusal decision 
despite knowing that s 22 would not be granted access to any of the requested 
documents. 
50.  Finally, once the Department became aware that the complainant would not be 
granted access to the requested documents, it would have been appropriate for 
the Department to consider whether it should have refunded the deposit in 
accordance with the FOI Guidelines at [4.86]. While I accept the Department’s 
submission that there is no requirement to provide a refund, I consider it is 
certainly appropriate to provide a refund in circumstances where: 
a.  an FOI applicant will not receive any of the requested documents, and 
b.  the Department cannot provide sufficient evidence to support the calculation 
of the deposit in the first instance. 
51.  The Department’s approach in not refunding the deposit does not align with the 
objects of the FOI Act, namely facilitating and promoting public access to 
information ‘at the lowest reasonable cost’. The amount of taxpayers’ dollars 
incurred by both the Department, as well as the OAIC, in investigating this 
complaint would far exceed the $60 deposit in dispute.  
FOIREQ24/00508     1790
FOIREQ24/00330   064
 
52.  For these reasons, I find that the Department’s practices and processes do not 
accord with ss 9 and 10 of the Charges Regulations, nor ss 3 or 29 of the FOI Act, 
nor Parts 9 and 10 of the FOI Guidelines. 
 
My conclusions in relation to the matters investigated 
53.  I have concluded that throughout the process – from issuing the initial charges 
notice of 9 June 2021 and through the FOI Complaint’s process – the Department 
has acted inconsistently with the FOI Act, the Freedom of Information (Charges) 
Regulations 2019 (Cth) (Charges Regulations), and/or FOI Guidelines in respect of 
finding the complainant liable to pay a charge in relation to s 22 FOI request/s. 
My finding that the Department failed to provide adequate assistance to the 
complainant to make a payment of a charge reflects a failing by the Department 
to act consistently with the FOI Act and/or FOI Guidelines from the initial 
exercise of charges functions by the Department and continuing.  
54.  Having regard to the above, I consider it is appropriate that the Department give 
careful consideration as to whether it should provide the complainant with a 
refund. I note that it remains open to the complainant to make an Information 
Commissioner (IC) review application under s 54N of the FOI Act. This process 
will take additional time, resources, and tax-payers dollars if an IC review were to 
proceed, which would cost significantly above the $60 deposit the Department 
has received to date. The Department give careful consideration as to whether 
requiring the complainant to undertake an IC review to obtain a refund aligns 
with the objects of the FOI Act, the Charges Regulations, and the FOI Guidelines.  
 
My recommendations 
55.  In consideration of the above, I make the following recommendations pursuant 
to s 88 of the FOI Act: 
a.  By 26 August 2024, the Department is to update its FOI Guidelines/Procedure 
Manual such that it better reflects the Charges process in accordance with the 
FOI Act and/or FOI Guidelines. In particular, the amendments should highlight 
the discretionary nature of charges, the expectation that sampling will occur 
when using a charges calculator, and the ongoing obligation of the 
Department to continue to be satisfied that the charge should be imposed.  

FOIREQ24/00508     1791
FOIREQ24/00330   065
b. By 25 November 2024, the Department’s FOI branch is to undergo training to
ensure compliance with the updated FOI Guidelines/Procedure Manual.
Evidence of the training is to be created and retained by the Department.
56. I have made the following suggestions under s 87(d) of the FOI Act:
a. By 25 March 2024, the Department give consideration to providing the
complainant with a full refund of the deposit of $60, having particular regard
to the findings above at [55]-[56].
b. The Department is to provide an update to the OAIC as soon as practicable
(but no later than by 25 March 2024) as to whether a full refund has been, or
will be, provided.
Elizabeth Tydd 
Freedom of Information Commissioner 
26 February 2024 

FOIREQ24/00508     1792
FOIREQ24/00508     1793
FOIREQ24/00330   067
 
16.  On 29 August 2023, the Department provided a response to the further 
preliminary inquiries.  
17.  On 7 September 2023, the OAIC made further preliminary inquiries with the 
Department. 
18.  On 27 September 2023, the Department provided a response to the further 
preliminary inquiries.  
19.  On 23 October 2023, the OAIC notified the parties under s 75 of the FOI Act that 
it would be commencing an investigation of this FOI complaint. The complainant 
was invited to provide submissions in reply to the Department’s responses to the 
OAIC’s preliminary inquiries. 
20.  The complainant did not provide a response to this request.  
21.  On 29 November 2023, the OAIC made a request for further information from 
the Department. 
22.  On 12 December 2023, the Department provided a response.  
 
2 
 

FOIREQ24/00508     1794




FOIREQ24/00508     1795
FOIREQ24/00330   069
The Department suggests that the only method by which this issue can be resolved is by 
way of an Information Commissioner (IC) review. 
Having regard to the objects of the FOI Act, as well as the Department’s responsibilities 
under s 15 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013, 
requiring this matter to proceed to an Information Commissioner (IC) review to 
consider whether the Department exercised the discretion to find the complainant liable 
to pay a charge in accordance with s 29 of the FOI Act adds to the ongoing unnecessary 
expenditure of tax-payer dollars. Further, there is no prohibition on the Department 
exercising an administrative discretion to provide a refund. 
However, in the interest of ensuring there is no further delay, the Office of the 
Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) has accepted the complainant’s 
application for an IC review. The OAIC will contact the Department separately to seek 
the revised decision under s 55G of the FOI Act. 
Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact me at any time 
xxxxxxxxx.xxxx@xxxx.xxx.xx.
Yours sincerely
Elizabeth Tydd
Freedom of Information Commissioner
3 April 2024
2

FOIREQ24/00508     1796

FOIREQ24/00508     1797

FOIREQ24/00508     1798
FOIREQ24/00508     1799
FOIREQ24/00330   073
The notice setting out these matters is at attached. 
My conclusions 
I have concluded that throughout the process – from issuing the initial charges notice 
of 9 June 2021 and through the FOI Complaint’s process – the Department has acted 
inconsistently with the FOI Act, the Freedom of Information (Charges) Regulations 
2019 (Cth) (Charges Regulations), and/or FOI Guidelines in respect of finding the 
complainant liable to pay a charge in relation to s 22 FOI request/s. My finding that 
the Department failed to provide adequate assistance to the complainant to make a 
payment of a charge reflects a failing by the Department to act consistently with the 
FOI Act and/or FOI Guidelines from the initial exercise of charges functions by the 
Department and continuing.  
My recommendations 
In considering whether to make any investigation recommendations, I have taken 
into account all of the information provided by the Department in relation to its 
current FOI processes and resources. 
Pursuant to s 88 of the FOI Act, I make the following recommendations: 
a. By 23 August 2024, the Department is to update its FOI
Guidelines/Procedure Manual such that it better reflects the Charges
process in accordance with the FOI Act and/or FOI Guidelines. In particular,
the amendments should highlight the discretionary nature of charges, the
expectation that sampling will occur when using a charges calculator, and
the ongoing obligation of the Department to continue to be satisfied that
the charge should be imposed.
b. By 23 November 2024, the Department’s FOI branch is to undergo training
to ensure compliance with the updated FOI Guidelines/Procedure Manual.
Evidence of the training is to be created and retained by the Department.
My suggestions 
I have also made the following suggestion under s 87(d) of the FOI Act: 
a. By 25 March 2024, the Department give consideration to providing the
complainant with a full refund of the deposit of $60.
b. The Department is to provide an update to the OAIC as soon as practicable
(but no later than by 25 March 2024) as to whether a full refund has been,
or will be, provided.
2 

FOIREQ24/00508     1800
FOIREQ24/00330   074
Next steps 
Comments under s 86(3) of the FOI Act 
Under s 86(3) of the FOI Act, the Department may provide any comments about the 
Notice on completion that the Department wishes to make. If the Department wishes 
to make any comments, please do so by 11 March 2024. 
The Department must notify the OAIC as to whether it accepts and will implement the 
recommendations set out in this Notice on completion, please advise the OAIC by 11 
March 2024. 
I have provided a copy of this Notice on completion to the complainant. 
I will publish a copy or summary of this Notice on completion and any comments 
from the Department on the OAIC’s website. 
If you would like to discuss this FOI complaint investigation please contact Jackie 
Scolyer, Director Reviews and Investigations on (02) 9942 0585 or email 
xxxxxx.xxxxxxx@xxxx.xxx.xx. Please quote the OAIC reference number above in any 
correspondence.  
Yours sincerely 
Elizabeth Tydd 
Freedom of Information Commissioner 
26 February 2024 
3 
FOIREQ24/00508     1801
FOIREQ24/00330   075
OAIC - FOI DR
From:
OAIC - FOI DR
Sent:
Wednesday, 29 November 2023 6:09
To:
FOI
Subject:
Response required by 13.12.23  – s 22
and Department of Health and Aged Care – 
s22
Our reference: s22
 
Agency reference: s22
 
 
FOI Contact Officer 
Department of Health and Aged Care 
By email: xxx@xxxxxx.xxx.xx 
Freedom of Information Complaint – s 22
 
Dear FOI Contact Officer 
 
I refer to the FOI complaint made by s 22
 (the complainant) of 7 September 2021 under s 70 of the 
Freedom of InformaƟon Act 1982 (Cth) (the FOI Act) regarding the manner in which the Department of Health and 
Aged Care (the Department) handled a request. Specifically, the complainant raises concerns that the Department 
did not assist s 22to make final payment of a charge. 
 
I confirm receipt of the Department’s responses of 23 November 2022, 29 August 2023 and 27 September 2023.  
 
Request for further informa on  
 
The Informa on Commissioner is in the final stages of comple ng their inves ga on of the FOI complaint. However, 
pursuant to s 76(2) of the FOI Act, further informa on is required from the Department before the inves ga on can 
be completed.  
 
Please provide a response to the following ques ons by 13 December 2023: 
 
1.  Whether the Department undertook any sampling prior to issuing: 
a.  the Charges No ce of 9 June 2021 
b.  the Charges decision of 28 June 2021 
c.  the internal review decision of 3 August 2021 
If so, please provide evidence of the sampling process. If not, please explain why the Department did not 
undertake a sampling process.  
 
2.  In the response of 27 September 2023, the Department stated that the “assessment of charges included an 
amount of $60.00 for the work undertaken to search and retrieve documents relevant to s 22
 
request”. The Department submi ed that “the quantum for search and retrieval of the documents is 
reasonable and proportionate, and does not exceed the actual amount the complainant was liable to pay”. 
Please provide evidence in support of this submission (for example contemporaneous files notes from the 
FOI officer completing the search and retrieval of the relevant documents). 
 
3.  In the response of 23 November 2022, the Department submi ed that the delays in contac ng the 
complainant regarding payment of the deposit were linked to the Canberra lockdown on 12 August 2021. 
Other than an excess in FOI applica ons, please confirm what other specific difficul es FOI officers faced in 
respect of contac ng FOI applicants and processing FOI requests during the lockdown period (12 August 
2021 to 15 October 2021).  
1


FOIREQ24/00508     1802
FOIREQ24/00330   076
 
4.  Please provide any other submissions the Department wishes to make regarding its prac ces and 
procedures for deciding whether an FOI applicant is liable to pay a charge and relevant to the complaint 
currently under inves ga on. 
 
For awareness, the Department’s prac ces and procedures for finding an FOI applicant liable to pay a charge, 
imposing the charge, and seeking payment of the charge is being considered as part of the inves ga on of the FOI 
complaint.  
 
Next steps 
I look forward to receiving your response by 13 December 2023. As this FOI complaint is in the final stages of 
inves ga on, pursuant to s 86 of the FOI Act, a No ce on Comple on will be issued shortly therea er. 
 
Kind regards, 
 
Naoimh 
 
 Naoimh Donaghy (she/her) 
Legal secondee 
Office of the Australian Information Commissioner 
Sydney | GPO Box 5288 Sydney NSW 2001 
P +61 2 9297 9072   E xxxxx@xxxx.xxx.xx  
 
 
Please note I work part-time on Wednesdays, Thursday and Fridays.  
 
The OAIC acknowledges Traditional Custodians of Country across Australia and their continuing connection to land,
waters and communities. We pay our respect to First Nations people, cultures and Elders past and present. 
  
 
Subscribe to Information Matters  
 
 
 
 
 
2

FOIREQ24/00508     1803

FOIREQ24/00508     1804
FOIREQ24/00330   078
From:
ENGLISH,Carl
To:
Education - FOI
Subject:
s22
 - IC review application - s 22
Date:
Thursday, 29 February 2024 4:09:00 PM
Attachments:
image001.jpg
image002.jpg
image004.jpg
Our reference: s22
FOI contact officer
Department of Education
Sent by email: xxx@xxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx
IC review s22
 – Request for further information 
Dear FOI contact officer
I write to you in relation to s 22
 IC review application of a charges decision made
by the Department of Education (the Department) under the Freedom of Information Act 1981
(Cth) (the FOI Act).
I note that I intend to progress this matter to the Information Commissioner for their decision
under s 55K of the FOI Act shortly. Before I do so, I wish to provide the Department a final
opportunity to provide any final submissions it wishes to provide in this matter.
I refer to a recent IC review decision made in relation to a decision made to impose charges
for processing a request - Paul Farrell and Services Australia (Freedom of information) [2024]
AICmr 37 (15 February 2024) (Paul Farrell). In Paul Farrell the Information Commissioner set
aside a decision made by Services Australia to impose a charge of $658.50, with particular
reference to the public interest in release of the relevant documents. You may wish to
consider this recent decision if the Department wishes to provide further submissions.
If the Department wishes to provide further submissions, please provide the submissions by
14 March 2024. I intend to progress this matter to the Information Commissioner on the basis
of the information held by the OAIC after that date.
Kind regards
Carl English (he/him)
Assistant Director, Freedom of information Regulatory Group
Office of the Australian Information Commissioner
Sydney | GPO Box 5288 Sydney NSW 2001
P +61 2 9942 4169 E xxxx.xxxxxxx@xxxx.xxx.xx
The OAIC acknowledges Traditional Custodians of Country across Australia and their continuing connection to land,
waters and communities. We pay our respect to First Nations people, cultures and Elders past and present.
Subscribe to Information Matters
FOIREQ24/00508     1805
FOIREQ24/00330   079
From:
OAIC - FOI DR
To:
Foi
Subject:
s22
 - IC review application - s 22
 and Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and
Forestry
Date:
Tuesday, 9 April 2024 11:34:00 AM
Attachments:
image001.jpg
image002.jpg
image003.jpg
Our reference: s22
Agency reference: s22
FOI Contact Officer
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
Sent by email: xxx@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx
IC review application - s 22
 and Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and
Forestry
Dear FOI contact officer
I write to you in relation to s 22
 application for IC review of a decision made by
the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (the Department) to impose a charge
for processing an FOI request.
I intend to progress this matter to our decisions team shortly. The role of the decisions team
is to assist the Information Commissioner in making a decision under s 55K of the Freedom of
Information Act 1982 (the FOI Act). However before I do so, the Office of the Australian
Information Commissioner (OAIC) needs further information from the Department to assist
the Information Commissioner to make their decision.
The basis of the Department’s estimates
In its submissions, the Department estimated that the total cost of decision-making in
relation to the applicant’s request to be $795 (prior to the deduction of 5 hours decision time
- $100). The Department further explained the basis of this estimate as follows:
… an estimated 3 hours for writing a statement of reasons equated to $60, examining
approximately 900 pages for decision-making at 2 minutes per page amounted to
$600 and redacting the number of pages which are to be partially disclosed, at 3
minutes per page amounted to $135.
The Department therefore estimates that 5 minutes per page would be required to examine
and redact the documents at issue.
In previous IC review decisions, it has generally been accepted that between 30 seconds to 5
minutes per page is a reasonable estimate of time required for an agency to both assess and
edit (redact) documents.  Generally where it has been accepted that an estimate at the high
end of the range is reasonable, the documents at issue have been complex or sensitive.
The FOI guidelines explain at [4.75]:
Generally, where a large number of documents have been identified in response to an
FOI request and the agency or minister decides it is appropriate to impose a charge,
there is an expectation that the agency or minister will obtain an accurate estimate by
sampling a reasonable selection of the relevant documents.

FOIREQ24/00508     1806
FOIREQ24/00330   080
Information required
To assist the Information Commissioner to make their decision in this IC review, please
provide the following by 23 April 2024:
Evidence in relation to any sampling exercise conducted by the Department that
demonstrates that its estimate that 5 minutes per page is an accurate reflection of  the
time that would be required to examine and redact the documents at issue
Submissions addressing any particular complexities and/or sensitivities in relation to
the documents, such as the exemptions likely to apply and the number of documents
that may require redaction
Any other information the Department wishes to provide to justify its decision in this
matter.
I note that any submissions the Department makes will be provided to the applicant unless
there are compelling reasons not to do so.
If at any stage of the IC review, the Department reconsiders its decision that the applicant is
liable to pay a charge to contribute to the processing of their request, the Department should
notify the OAIC as soon as possible. The Department has two options to resolve the IC Review
in such a circumstance:
1. The Department may make a revised decision under s 55G waiving the charge in full
2. A short decision can be made under s 55K of the FOI Act putting into effect the
Department’s revised position that the applicant is not liable to pay a charge. An
example of such a decision is ‘AIP’ and Department of Education (Freedom of
information) [2024] AICmr 63 (27 March 2024)
If you have any questions about this email, I can be contacted on 02 9942 4169.
Kind regards
Carl English (he/him)
Assistant Director, Freedom of information Regulatory Group
Office of the Australian Information Commissioner
Sydney | GPO Box 5288 Sydney NSW 2001
P +61 2 9942 4169 E xxxx.xxxxxxx@xxxx.xxx.xx
The OAIC acknowledges Traditional Custodians of Country across Australia and their continuing connection to land,
waters and communities. We pay our respect to First Nations people, cultures and Elders past and present.
Subscribe to Information Matters

FOIREQ24/00508     1807
FOIREQ24/00330   081
From:
ENGLISH,Carl
To:
Education - FOI
Subject:
s22
 - IC review application - s 22
Date:
Thursday, 29 February 2024 4:39:00 PM
Attachments:
image001.jpg
image002.jpg
image004.jpg
Our reference: s22
FOI contact officer
Department of Education
Sent by email: xxx@xxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx
IC review s22
 – Request for further information 
Dear FOI contact officer
I write to you in relation to s 22
 IC review application of a charges decision made
by the Department of Education (the Department) under the Freedom of Information Act 1981
(Cth) (the FOI Act).
I note that I intend to progress this matter to the Information Commissioner for their decision
under s 55K of the FOI Act shortly. Before I do so, I wish to provide the Department a final
opportunity to provide any final submissions it wishes to provide in this matter.
I refer to a recent IC review decision made in relation to a decision made to impose charges
for processing a request - Paul Farrell and Services Australia (Freedom of information) [2024]
AICmr 37 (15 February 2024) (Paul Farrell). In Paul Farrell the Information Commissioner set
aside a decision made by Services Australia to impose a charge of $658.50, with particular
reference to the public interest in release of the relevant documents. You may wish to
consider this recent decision if the Department wishes to provide further submissions.
If the Department wishes to provide further submissions, please provide the submissions by
14 March 2024. I intend to progress this matter to the Information Commissioner on the basis
of the information held by the OAIC after that date.
Kind regards
Carl English (he/him)
Assistant Director, Freedom of information Regulatory Group
Office of the Australian Information Commissioner
Sydney | GPO Box 5288 Sydney NSW 2001
P +61 2 9942 4169 E xxxx.xxxxxxx@xxxx.xxx.xx
The OAIC acknowledges Traditional Custodians of Country across Australia and their continuing connection to land,
waters and communities. We pay our respect to First Nations people, cultures and Elders past and present.
Subscribe to Information Matters

FOIREQ24/00508     1808
FOIREQ24/00330   082
From:
DONAGHY,Naoimh
To:
FOI
Subject:
Response required by 21.09.23 - s22
– s 22
 and Department of Health and Aged Care [SEC=OFFICIAL:Sensitive]
Date:
Thursday, 7 September 2023 4:50:00 PM
Attachments:
image001.jpg
image002.jpg
image005.png
image004.jpg
image003.jpg
Our reference: s22
Your ref: s22
FOI Contact Officer
Department of Health and Aged Care
By email: xxx@xxxxxx.xxx.xx
Freedom of Information Complaint – s 22
Dear Stephanie
Thank you for your below email and the relevant attachments.
Question 2
I understand your response to question 2 to mean that the remaining balance of the charge is outstanding and that the Department has not refunded
the deposit. Please confirm if my understanding is correct.
If so, please provide submissions as to whether the Department would be willing to refund the deposit in circumstances where no documents were
released to the complainant. In providing your response, please have regard to reg 10 of the Freedom of Information (Charges) Regulations 2019, as
well as paragraphs [4.86] of the FOI Guidelines.
Question 3
In respect of your response to question 3 below, I confirm the complainant has not yet exercised s 22 right to IC review. However, in light of the above,
I would be grateful if the Department you could please confirm whether the Department would be willing to waive the charge. If not, please provide
submissions why.   
Next steps
Please provide your submissions by 21 September 2023. Please provide these submissions in a format which we can provide to the complainant.
Once I receive your response and had the opportunity to consider it, I will then provide you with an update on the next steps in the complaints
process.
Kind regards,
Naoimh
 Naoimh Donaghy (she/her)
Legal secondee
Office of the Australian Information Commissioner
Sydney | GPO Box 5288 Sydney NSW 2001
P +61 2 9297 9072   E xxxxx@xxxx.xxx.xx
Please note I work part-time on Wednesdays, Thursday and Fridays.
The OAIC acknowledges Traditional Custodians of Country across Australia and their continuing connection to land,
waters and communities. We pay our respect to First Nations people, cultures and Elders past and present.
Subscribe to Information Matters
OFFICIAL: Sensitive
From: FOI <xxx@xxxxxx.xxx.xx> 
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2023 3:35 PM
To: OAIC - FOI DR <xxxxx@xxxx.xxx.xx>; DONAGHY,Naoimh <xxxxxx.xxxxxxx@xxxx.xxx.xx>; FOI <xxx@xxxxxx.xxx.xx>
Subject: Health response - s22
 – s 22
 and Department of Health and Aged Care [SEC=OFFICIAL:Sensitive]
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organisation. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender
and know the content is safe.
Our ref:  s22
Your ref: s22
Dear Naoimh
FOIREQ24/00508     1809
FOIREQ24/00330   083
Freedom of Information Complaint – s 22
I refer to your email below seeking further information in relation to a complaint by s 22
 regarding the manner in which the
department handled a request made under s 15 of the Freedom of Information Act 1982.
I set out your questions and the department’s response below in blue for ease of reference. 
1.  Has the charge has been paid (partially or in full)? The charge has been paid in part. A deposit of $60.00 was paid on 10
September 2021.  Please see attached receipt issued to s 22
 by the department.
a.  If so, what date was the charge paid? See above.
b.  If not, what is the remaining balance? The remaining balance is $180.00.
2.  Has the complainant been given access to the documents? s 22
 was notified on 21 September 2021 of the decision to
refuse access to 12 documents in full. Please see attached email correspondence to s 22
 of that date.
3.  Would the Department be amendable to waiving the charge in the circumstances?  I understand that your inquiries relate to a
complaint by s 22
 under s 70 of the FOI Act, which is focussed on the applicant’s purported inability to contact the
department to pay a charge for processing s 22  FOI request.  I would be grateful if you confirm whether s 22
 has
exercised s 22 right to seek IC review of the department’s access refusal decision in relation to the imposition of the charge under s
29 of the FOI Act.
You also asked whether the department has any objections to release of the department’s response of 23 November 2021to the OAIC’s
preliminary inquiries regarding complain, as shown in your email.  I confirm the department has no objections to release of the
submissions as set out below.
Please feel free to contact me about any of the above. 
Stephanie s 47E(d)
Principal Lawyer – Freedom of Information Section
Legal Advice and Legislation Branch
Legal & Assurance Division | Corporate Operations Group
Australian Government Department of Health and Aged Care
T: s47E(d)
 | E: s47E(d)
Location: Sirius Building 5.N.325; MDP 516
PO Box 9848, Canberra ACT 2601, Australia
Please note I work Monday toThursday
The Department of Health and Aged Care acknowledges the Traditional Custodians of Australia and their continued connection to land, sea and community. We pay our
respects to all Elders past and present. 
Please note that this email and attachments may contain confidential or legally privileged information. Please consult with Legal Division  before disclosing any part of this
email, or attachment, outside the Department. If you receive this email in error, please delete it and contact the sender immediately.
From: OAIC - FOI DR <xxxxx@xxxx.xxx.xx> 
Sent: Wednesday, 23 August 2023 4:03 PM
To: FOI <xxx@xxxxxx.xxx.xx>
Subject: Response required by 06.09.23 – s22
– s 22
 and Department of Health and Aged Care [SEC=OFFICIAL:Sensitive]
OFFICIAL: Sensitive
Our reference: s22
FOI Contact Officer
Department of Health and Aged Care
By email: xxx@xxxxxx.xxx.xx
Freedom of Information Complaint – s 22
Dear FOI contact officer
I have recently been allocated the FOI complaint made by s 22
 (the complainant) of 7 September 2021 regarding the manner in which the
Department of Health and Aged Care (the Department) handled a request made under s 15 of the Freedom of Information Act 1982.  
Request for information
The complaint largely relates to the complainant’s purported inability to contact the Department to pay a charge in or around August 2021 to secure
the release of documents. To assist us in progressing this FOI complaint, we would be grateful for the Department’s response to the following
questions:
1.  Has the charge has been paid (partially or in full)?
a.  If so, what date was the charge paid?
b.  If not, what is the remaining balance?
2.  Has the complainant been given access to the documents?
3.  Would the Department be amendable to waiving the charge in the circumstances?

FOIREQ24/00508     1810
FOIREQ24/00330   084
I would be grateful for a response by 6 September 2023 in a format which can be provided to the complainant.
Respondent’s submissions
On 23 November 2021, the Department provided the following response to the OAIC’s preliminary inquiries regarding the FOI complaint:
s22
s 22
08/09/2021
Inability to contact
s22
the Department to
The Canberra lockdown commenced on 12/8/2021,
pay the processing
shortly after the charge notice was issued to the
charge.
applicant in relation to this FOI request.  The lockdown
presented a range of challenges for the department and
other entities.
The department acted as quickly as possible to make a
range of necessary arrangements to support operations
during the shutdown, including provision for payments
for FOI requests and other matters.
The department had more than 400 active FOI requests
on hand (plus internal and IC reviews) at the end of the
week in which this complaint was made to the OAIC. 
Before the pandemic, the department generally had up
to 30 active FOI requests on hand at a time.  The
department was taking a range of steps to respond to
the surge, including recruiting and training additional FOI
case officers as quickly as possible but the sharp increase
in the volume of requests and the impact of the
pandemic on our workforce resulted in delays in
processing.
Please confirm whether the Department has any objections to the OAIC providing a copy of this summary to the complainant for response. If so,
please provide reasons for your objections by 6 September 2023.
Please call if you wish to discuss.
Kind regards,
Naoimh
 Naoimh Donaghy (she/her)
Legal secondee
Office of the Australian Information Commissioner
Sydney | GPO Box 5288 Sydney NSW 2001
P +61 2 9297 9072   E xxxxx@xxxx.xxx.xx
Please note I work part-time on Wednesdays, Thursday and Fridays.
The OAIC acknowledges Traditional Custodians of Country across Australia and their continuing connection to land,
waters and communities. We pay our respect to First Nations people, cultures and Elders past and present.
Subscribe to Information Matters
OFFICIAL: Sensitive
Notice:
The information contained in this email message and any attached files may be confidential information, and may also be the subject of legal
professional privilege. If you are not the intended recipient any use, disclosure or copying of this email is unauthorised. If you received this
email in error, please notify the sender by contacting the department's switchboard on 1300 488 064 during business hours (8:30am - 5pm
Canberra time) and delete all copies of this transmission together with any attachments.
"Important: This transmission is intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain confidential or legally privileged information.  If you are
not the intended recipient, you are notified that any use or dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If you receive this transmission
in error please notify the author immediately and delete all copies of this transmission."