LEX 51949 Notice of Internal Review Decision.pdf

Bob Buckley
By email only: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx

Dear Bob

Freedom of Information Internal Review LEX 51949

I refer to your application under Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act) made to the Department
of Social Services (the Department) on 18 October 2024. The application seeks internal review of the
decision made in respect of the FOI request LEX 51700 (original decision) which sought access to:
  …all documents created, held, sent or received by SES level staff since 1 July 2020 that relate to policy
development, program implementation, and general attitudes for disability advocacy for individual
Autistic Australians.…

I am authorised to make internal review decisions under subsection 23(1) of the FOI Act and am
writing to inform you of that decision.

The original decision

The original decision refused access to the documents sought in ful  on the basis that processing the
request would unreasonably and substantial y divert the resources of the Department from its other
operations and therefore that a practical refusal reason exists in respect of the request.

A copy of the original decision is enclosed.

Internal review decision

I have decided to affirm the original decision that a practical refusal reason exists in accordance with
section 24 of the FOI Act.

The request for internal review submitted that there was insufficient evidence to find that the request
was too voluminous to process, and therefore that a claim of a practical refusal reason could not be
substantiated. The application did not acknowledge prior advice from the Department that it had
undertaken preliminary enquiries as to the amount of documents within scope, and that the refusal
decision was being made on the basis of that advice.

As iterated throughout the primary decision process, the request is framed broadly and captures a
significant amount of documents within its scope.

The Department is involved in multiple programs that concern delivery of disability advocacy for
individual Autistic Australians. These include:

•  systemic advocacy – this would not be limited to the Disability Representative Organisation (DRO)
program but could also include participation in other consultation processes that would explicitly or
potential y represent the views of Autistic Australians in deliberative processes.
•  Information, Linkages and Capacity Building program (ILCBP) - which funds a range of activities,
many of which are described as ‘peer support’ and ‘support for self-advocacy’; it is likely that many
of these activities would target or benefit Autistic Australians.

•  Supporting Participation Program - which funds individuals to participate as civil society
representatives in international for a (typically United Nations); autistic individuals have been
funded under this program and the activity may be described as disability advocacy.
•  Disability Royal Commission (DRC) support activities – these include counsel ing and other
supports to prepare and participate in the DRC processes; much if not al  this support could be
described as related to disability advocacy.

As the Department plays a role in administering these programs, every email in its possession that
mentions them would fal  within scope as they would relate to the program’s policy development or
program implementation.  Accordingly the Department has conducted IT searches of email inboxes of
current Senior Executive Service (SES) who may have received emails relating to the above identified
programs for emails that include the following phrases:

"disability advocacy for Autistic Australians"
"advocacy for Autistic Australians"
"advocacy for Autism"
"disability advocacy for autism"
"NDAP"
"National Disability Advocacy Program"
"Information Linkages and Capacity Building program"
"ILC"
"Disability Royal Commission"
"DRC"

This search has identified 244,823 emails generated during the period of January 2020 to May 2024.
The IT team also conducted searches of the Department’s Enterprise Vault ‘EV’ which identified a
further 33,574 emails meeting the same search terms. Accordingly, 278,397 documents in total were
identified during this preliminary search.

I have made the fol owing assumptions:

-  half of the documents identified contain duplicates (such is the nature of email chains);
-  the documents are on average 3 pages each in length; and
-  it would take 3 minutes per page to review and consider whether exemptions may apply to them.

On the basis of the above, it would take a total of 20,879.7 hours (139,198 documents x 3 pages x 3
minutes / 60 minutes), or just under 2,784 working days to review the documents subject to your
request.

It is likely certain emails within scope of the request will have attachments, increasing the total
amount of documents, and the Department wil  need undertake the significant administrative
processes associated with a request of this size. We also note that the searches conducted thus far
have only been of the email inboxes of current substantive SES officers and not of previous or acting
SES, so the total number of documents within scope wil  likely increase once those searches have been
undertaken.

I consider that processing this request would be an unreasonable and substantial diversion of
resources in particular those for the FOI team and subject matter specialists dealing with programs
that involve disability advocacy for autistic Australians. I therefore am satisfied that a practical refusal
reason exists in respect of the request and affirm the primary decision to refuse it.

Material relied upon in making this decision

I relied on the following material in coming to this decision:
•  the terms of the FOI request;
•  the application for internal review;
•  the documents subject to the FOI request;
•  advice from subject matter experts within the Department regarding the amount of subject to the
request;
•  the FOI Act; and
•  the Guidelines issued by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner under section 93A
of the FOI Act (FOI Guidelines).

Review rights and complaints

Information concerning how you may seek a review of this decision or make a complaint about the
handling of this request is at Attachment B.

Contact
If you would like to discuss any aspect of my decision, please contact me at xxx@xxx.xxx.xx.

Yours sincerely

Alan Hilvert-Bruce
Authorised FOI Decision Maker
18 November 2024

Attachments
Attachment A – Review Rights

ATTACHMENT A

REVIEW RIGHTS

Information Commissioner review

You can apply for the Information Commissioner to review this decision either immediately or
following an internal review decision. You must apply to the Information Commissioner within 60 days
of the receipt of this decision letter.

Further details on this process can be found on the Information Commissioner’s website at
https://www.oaic.gov.au/.

Complaints to the Information Commissioner

You may also make a complaint to the Information Commissioner concerning actions taken by the
Department while exercising its powers or performing its functions under the FOI Act.

Further details on this process can be found on the Information Commissioner’s website at
https://www.oaic.gov.au/.