PO Box 7820 Canberra BC ACT 2610
26 February 2025
Our reference: LEX 83271
LEX 82935
Nosey Rosey (Right to Know)
Only by email: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx
Dear Sir / Madam
Freedom of Information Request – Internal Review Decision
I refer to your correspondence received by Services Australia (the Agency) on
14 January 2025, seeking internal review of an original decision (LEX 82935) made by the
Agency on 14 January 2025 in relation to your request for access to documents under the
Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act).
Background
On 14 December 2024, you requested access under the FOI Act to the following documents:
Part 1
I seek access to records held by Services Australia that detail who has been granted
access to the Verification of Entitlement (VoE) system within the last ten years, the
reasons such access was permitted, the date on which each instance of access was
granted, and the scheduled date for any subsequent review or re-approval of that
access. I refer specifically to the VoE functionality administered by Services Australia,
as described on the Centrelink Confirmation eServices (CCeS) page found at:
https:/ aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.servicesa
ustralia.gov.au%2Fcentrelink-confirmation-eservices-
cces&data=05%7C02%7Cfreedomofinformation%40servicesaustralia.gov.au%7C625
c8c9399bf4e48231508dd1bebb000%7C627250e63e294861a084aad68ccfcccc%7C0
%7C0%7C638697421416048358%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1h
cGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyf
Q%3D%3D%7C80000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ma42%2FcOhyEwdpWW5%2B0fgvJXt
shY%2B0E02C2WZjUebGPA%3D&reserved=0.
I request documents that identify any company or organisation granted access to the
VoE system, along with the name of that company or entity, the reason why access
was granted, the initial date on which that access was approved, and the date when
the approval for that access is next scheduled to be reviewed. Where an individual has
been granted access in their own right, rather than as part of a company or
organisation, I request disclosure of the individual’s name. If this would cause
unreasonable disclosure of personal information, I ask that you consider whether
identifying the individual by a first name and a role description, or a similar method,
would be feasible while stil satisfying the public interest in understanding who is
permit ed to use the VoE system. I am not seeking any personal contact details or
sensitive personal information about these individuals beyond their names as they
appear in the context of approved users of the VoE system.
PAGE 1 OF 14
Part 2
I also request copies of any documents that outline the policies, procedures, criteria, or
internal guidelines governing how access to the VoE system is approved, managed,
and periodically reviewed. This includes any instructions to staff, procedural manuals,
or policy statements that describe the processes by which certain entities or individuals
become authorised users, the factors considered in approving or denying access
requests, the review mechanisms that are in place, and the intervals at which access
privileges are re-evaluated.
If the requested information is stored in a database or can be readily extracted from
electronic records, I request that you provide it in a machine-readable format, such as
CSV or Excel, where that is reasonably practicable. If the records are contained in
written documents, I ask that you provide scanned copies or PDFs. I understand that
some documents may contain information that is not relevant to my request, and I am
wil ing to receive redacted versions of documents if it assists in processing this request
in a timely manner. Should you consider that identifying details of individuals require
redaction to comply with the FOI Act, I ask that you consult with me under section 24AB
before making a decision, so that we may discuss whether a refinement of the request
is possible.
I believe that the disclosure of these documents serves the public interest, as it wil
enable greater transparency and accountability regarding how access to the VoE
system is managed. This system affects a wide range of stakeholders, and
understanding who has been granted permission to use it, as well as the reasons for
doing so, contributes to the public’s confidence that personal information managed by
Services Australia is properly safeguarded and that access is granted for legitimate
purposes only.
On 8 January 2025, the Agency formally consulted with you under section 24AB of the FOI Act
as the amount of work involved in processing your request would substantially and
unreasonably divert the resources of the Agency from its other operations.
On 9 January 2025, you refused to revise the scope of your request.
On 14 January 2025, the Agency notified you of the original decision to refuse your request
under section 24(1) of the FOI Act because a ‘practical refusal reason’ existed under section
24AA of the FOI Act. The Agency was satisfied that the work involved in progressing your
request would substantial y and unreasonably divert the resources of the Agency from its other
operations as specified in section 24AA(1)(a)(i) of the FOI Act.
On 14 January 2025, you requested an internal review of the original decision.
Deemed refusal
The Agency was required to provide you with a decision in relation to your internal review
request by 13 February 2025. As a decision was not provided to you by this date, the principal
officer of the Agency is deemed to have affirmed the original decision under section 54D of the
FOI Act.
I sincerely apologise for the delay in processing your request. Your internal review request of
the practical refusal is deemed (so the practical refusal is affirmed under the FOI Act).
However, to assist you, I am providing you with a statement of reasons. Please see the
statement of reasons at Attachment A.
PAGE 2 OF 14
If a decision had been made within the statutory period, I would have been satisfied:
1. the Agency is not required to create a writ en document containing the information in
a discrete form because it cannot do so through the ‘use of a computer or other
equipment that is ordinarily available to the agency for retrieving or collating stored
information’ (section 17 of the FOI Act); and
2. that a ‘practical refusal reason’ exists under section 24AA of the FOI Act, as the work
involved in progressing your request (including manually identifying relevant
information from separate data points, document lists and uploaded files (such as
individual contracts or letters) to gather reliable, accurate data) would substantially and
unreasonably divert the resources of the Agency from its other operations as specified
in section 24AA(1)(a)(i) of the FOI Act.
You can ask for a review of the decision
You can ask for an external review of the deemed affirmation or the original decision by the
Australian Information Commissioner. See Attachment B for more information about how to
request an external review.
Further assistance
If you have any questions please email xxx.xxxxx.xxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx.
Yours sincerely
Philippa
Authorised FOI Decision Maker
Freedom of Information Team
FOI and Reviews Branch | Legal Services Division
Services Australia
PAGE 3 OF 14
PO Box 7820 Canberra BC ACT 2610
Attachment A
STATEMENT OF REASONS
What you requested
On 14 December 2024, you requested access under the FOI Act to the following documents:
Part 1
I seek access to records held by Services Australia that detail who has been granted
access to the Verification of Entitlement (VoE) system within the last ten years, the
reasons such access was permitted, the date on which each instance of access was
granted, and the scheduled date for any subsequent review or re-approval of that
access. I refer specifically to the VoE functionality administered by Services Australia,
as described on the Centrelink Confirmation eServices (CCeS) page found at:
https:/ aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.servicesa
ustralia.gov.au%2Fcentrelink-confirmation-eservices-
cces&data=05%7C02%7Cfreedomofinformation%40servicesaustralia.gov.au%7C625
c8c9399bf4e48231508dd1bebb000%7C627250e63e294861a084aad68ccfcccc%7C0
%7C0%7C638697421416048358%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1h
cGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyf
Q%3D%3D%7C80000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ma42%2FcOhyEwdpWW5%2B0fgvJXt
shY%2B0E02C2WZjUebGPA%3D&reserved=0.
I request documents that identify any company or organisation granted access to the
VoE system, along with the name of that company or entity, the reason why access
was granted, the initial date on which that access was approved, and the date when
the approval for that access is next scheduled to be reviewed. Where an individual has
been granted access in their own right, rather than as part of a company or
organisation, I request disclosure of the individual’s name. If this would cause
unreasonable disclosure of personal information, I ask that you consider whether
identifying the individual by a first name and a role description, or a similar method,
would be feasible while stil satisfying the public interest in understanding who is
permit ed to use the VoE system. I am not seeking any personal contact details or
sensitive personal information about these individuals beyond their names as they
appear in the context of approved users of the VoE system.
Part 2
I also request copies of any documents that outline the policies, procedures, criteria, or
internal guidelines governing how access to the VoE system is approved, managed,
and periodically reviewed. This includes any instructions to staff, procedural manuals,
or policy statements that describe the processes by which certain entities or individuals
become authorised users, the factors considered in approving or denying access
requests, the review mechanisms that are in place, and the intervals at which access
privileges are re-evaluated.
If the requested information is stored in a database or can be readily extracted from
electronic records, I request that you provide it in a machine-readable format, such as
CSV or Excel, where that is reasonably practicable. If the records are contained in
written documents, I ask that you provide scanned copies or PDFs. I understand that
some documents may contain information that is not relevant to my request, and I am
PAGE 4 OF 14
wil ing to receive redacted versions of documents if it assists in processing this request
in a timely manner. Should you consider that identifying details of individuals require
redaction to comply with the FOI Act, I ask that you consult with me under section 24AB
before making a decision, so that we may discuss whether a refinement of the request
is possible.
I believe that the disclosure of these documents serves the public interest, as it wil
enable greater transparency and accountability regarding how access to the VoE
system is managed. This system affects a wide range of stakeholders, and
understanding who has been granted permission to use it, as well as the reasons for
doing so, contributes to the public’s confidence that personal information managed by
Services Australia is properly safeguarded and that access is granted for legitimate
purposes only.
On 8 January 2025, the Agency formally consulted with you under section 24AB of the FOI Act
as the amount of work involved in processing your request would substantially and
unreasonably divert the resources of the Agency from its other operations.
On 9 January 2025, you refused to revise the scope of your request.
On 14 January 2025, the Agency notified you of the original decision to refuse your request
under section 24(1) of the FOI Act because a ‘practical refusal reason’ existed under section
24AA of the FOI Act. The Agency was satisfied that the work involved in progressing your
request would substantial y and unreasonably divert the resources of the Agency from its other
operations as specified in section 24AA(1)(a)(i) of the FOI Act.
Your internal review request
On 14 January 2025, you requested an internal review of the original decision, providing written
submissions in which you disagreed with the application of section 24AA of the FOI Act,
referring to section 17(1) of the FOI Act.
Your submissions have not been repeated here due to length, however they have been given
due regard.
What I took into account
In writing this statement of reasons, I considered:
• your original request dated 14 December 2024
• the consultation process undertaken in the original decision
• your correspondence dated 9 January 2025
• your internal review request dated 14 January 2025
• documents falling within the scope of your request
• consultations with Agency officers about:
o the nature of the documents
o searches conducted for the documents requested
PAGE 5 OF 14
o the capabilities of the Agency, and
o the Agency's operating environment and functions
• guidelines issued by the Australian Information Commissioner under section 93A of the
FOI Act (the Guidelines), and
• the FOI Act.
Statement of reasons
If a decision had been made in time, I am satisfied that a practical reason would still exist in
that the work involved in processing your request would substantially and unreasonably divert
the resources of the Agency from its other operations. Further, I am satisfied that that the
obligation under section 17(1) of the FOI Act to create a document does not arise in the present
matter.
My findings of fact and reasons, including consideration of the factors I am required to take
into account in section 24AA(2), are outlined below.
Practical refusal reason
Section 24AA of the FOI Act provides:
(1) For the purposes of section 24, a practical refusal reason exists in relation to a
request for a document if either (or both) of the following applies:
(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…
…
(2) Subject to subsection (3), but without limiting the matters to which the agency or
Minister may have regard, in deciding whether a practical refusal reason exists, the
agency or Minister must have regard to the resources that would have to be used for
the following:
(a) identifying, locating or collating the documents within the filing system of the
agency, or the office of the Minister;
(b) deciding whether to grant, refuse or defer access to a document to which
the request relates, or to grant access to an edited copy of such a document,
including resources that would have to be used for:
(i) examining the document; or
(i ) consulting with any person or body in relation to the request;
(c) making a copy, or an edited copy, of the document;
(d) notifying any interim or final decision on the request.
PAGE 6 OF 14
Part 3.117 of the FOI Guidelines sets out additional matters which may be relevant in deciding
whether a practical refusal reason exists, including:
• the staffing resources available to an agency for FOI processing
• whether the processing work requires the specialist attention of a senior of icer, or can
only be undertaken by one or more specialist officers in an agency who have competing
responsibilities
• the impact that processing a request may have on other work in an agency, including
FOI processing
• whether an applicant has cooperated in framing a request to reduce the processing
workload
• whether there is a significant public interest in the documents requested
• other steps taken by an agency or minister to publish information of the kind requested
by an applicant
Consultation with business areas
The Disability and Payment Capability Programs Branch, within the Working Age and Pension
Programs Division was considered to be the relevant and appropriate area of the agency
responsible for any documents that would fall within the scope of your request. The Disability
and Payment Capability Programs Branch is responsible for managing a number of core
payments and programs including the policy, operational and program management, delivery
and compliance of Centrelink Confirmation eServices (CCeS).
This business area advised there are over 3,000 businesses and organisations who would fall
within Part 1 of your request. To manually gather the information requested in Part 1 of your
request, it would take approximately 10 minutes per entity to manually extract this information.
While some information could be automatically extracted, this would not cover some of the
data you have requested, including reasons access was granted, approval and re-approval
dates (if businesses have had multiple approvals), and scheduled review dates. To extract
this information, officers would have to manually review and analyse separate data points,
document lists and uploaded files (such as individual contracts or letters) to gather reliable,
accurate data.
Having regard to functionality of the Agency’s system and where this information is stored, it
is not possible to automatically extract this information, and I have discussed this further below.
I have considered Part 2 of your request, and note that while Part 2 of your request is not, itself
voluminous, the FOI Act does not allow for a FOI request to part processed. This is because
when determining whether to refuse a request on the basis processing the request would
substantially and unreasonably divert the resources of the agency, the entirety of the request
is refused.
PAGE 7 OF 14
Substantial diversion of agency resources – search and retrieval time
Part 1 – Total estimated search and retrieval time 500 hours
(manually review over 3,000 business records and
extract each data point)
(Section 24AA(2)(a))
Part 1 – Consultation (extract business information, 1,500 hours
produce letter and review responses)
(Section 24AA(2)(b)(ii))
Part 2 – Search and retrieval time
Less than 10 hours
(Section 24AA(2)(a))
Examining documents, and drafting a decision to grant 10 hours
or refuse access
(Sections 24AA(2)(b) and 24AA(2)(c)).
While there is no precise number of hours on what is considered “substantial”, I am satisfied
the processing of your request would take more than 2,000 hours, and this is a burden is
appropriately considered as substantial.
Substantial diversion of resources – consultation
In your internal request for internal review you stated:
Section 27 does not require agencies to consult on every single instance of disclosure,
particularly where the information sought concerns organisational names or general
descriptions, which would not constitute sensitive personal data.
I note that section 27 does not go to personal information, rather, it relates to documents
containing business information in respect of a person, organisation or undertaking, and it
appears the organisation concerned
might reasonably wish to make an exemption contention.
In
Dreyfus and Attorney-General (Commonwealth of Australia) (Freedom of Information)
[2015] AATA 995, Justice Jagot considered the burden of consultation in response to a FOI
request, and did not accept that consultation would be required where it covered only the name
or names of a business.
However, Jagot J opined that consultation is required once the
appearance of a reasonable
wish to make an exemption contention arises. In the present matter, I consider that the
documents you have sought go beyond the mere mention of the name, but rather also seek
access to the
reasons why access was granted, dates regarding approval (and re-approval if
relevant), and review dates. I consider that entities may wish to make an exemption contention
with respect to information that may reflect on their compliance with policies or situations where
it could be inferred they have been non-compliant, if there have been multiple approval dates.
PAGE 8 OF 14
I consider it is reasonable in these circumstances there is a rational basis the entities involved
may wish to make an exemption contention.
In considering this, I have also had due regard to the large range of entities that are known to
use the CCeS and cover state government departments, councils, not-for-profits, education
providers, schools, housing providers, public and private companies.
Accordingly, I am satisfied consultation would be required if part 1 of your request were to be
processed and this would add to the processing time. Noting there are over 3,000 businesses
and organisations, even if it took 30 minutes to prepare and notify a consultation notice and
consider responses from these organisations, this element would take in excess of 1,500
hours.
Unreasonable diversion of agency resources
The agency receives approximately 4,700 FOI requests per year, representing 14% of all FOI
requests made to the Commonwealth as a whole. While the Agency has approximately 33,500
employees1, the FOI team has approximately 45 staff, with staff allocated to process either
complex FOI requests or routine releases of personal information.
As noted above, to extract the information you are seeking, each record would need to be
manually reviewed and the information extracted, which could involve multiple data points,
contracts, and uploaded files. It would require a dedicated officer within the Working Age and
Pension Programs Division to spend at least 10 minutes per entity gathering the information
on each entity. Considering there are over 3,000 entities, this would take a single officer over
13 weeks to undertake this task, significantly diverting them from their ordinary business
functions. I consider this to be a conservative estimate, as it does not factor in time of other
officers to check and review the extracted data by way of a quality assurance process. This
would significantly impact the other work undertaken by these officers.
Considering whether processing a request would be unreasonable is a question of fact and
degree which calls for a balancing of all the legitimate interests involved. I recognise that the
FOI Act facilitates and promotes public access to information, promptly and at the reasonable
cost.
However, I consider the resources required to process your request are not insignificant. While
the agency is large, the work would be required to be done by individuals working within the
relevant area, and the bulk of the work (interrogating each individual record) wil not be done
by the agency’s specialised FOI team, rather it would be done by the business area.
This task is not something that can be undertaken by any agency of icer, but rather, only a
small number of staff would have the appropriate knowledge to undertake this task. I consider
there could be no meaningful reliance on any data collected if the officers collecting data did
not have familiarity with the CCeS system. As such, I consider undertaking this work would
represent a material disruption to the normal business operations and priorities of the business
area.
I have given consideration to the fact you were provided the opportunity to revise the scope
and declined to do so. However, I have afforded this minimal weight in determining if
processing the request is unreasonable, as you have requested a discrete document
containing the information you seek is created.
1 Services Australia Annual Report 2023-2024.
PAGE 9 OF 14
I have noted your submission that there is significant public interest in the requested
documents, being that release of the information wil increase scrutiny and review of
Government activities, including allowing the public to know who has been granted access to
CCeS.
However, it is well established the FOI Act does not pursue its objects, as legislative purposes,
at any cost. 2 There is balance between the exposure of government processes and activities
to increase public participation against the burden placed on agencies. Moreover, I have had
regard to the fact a significant amount of information has been published about CCeS and the
reasons entities can be granted access.
I am satisfied in the present matter, the public interest in release of documents does by itself
overwhelm the substantial resources required to process your request.
In respect of Part 2 of your request, I have noted your submission that it was not demonstrated
why the publicly available documents were sufficient. Part 2 of your request sought access to
documents that outline the polices, procedures, criteria or internal guidelines that govern how
the [CCeS] system is approved, managed and periodically approved.
The material which you were provided access to (which includes the CCeS Policy, Terms,
Guides and operational blueprint information) outline:
• the process for a business to apply to use CCeS
• criteria and eligibility for approval
• responsibilities and expectations of approved businesses
• actions the agency can take
• matters the agency may take into account when determining to grant approval or
suspect or withdraw approval
• how decisions can be reviewed
• business categories
• review mechanisms
• information relating to audits and reviews
• how CCeS is used
• how applications are assessed and finalised
• issuing letters regarding notices of approval or refusals.
I note, operational blueprints are processes followed by Agency staff to assist them to
determine and deliver health, social and welfare payments and services on behalf of the
2 Kline v Official Secretary to the Governor General [2013] HCA 52 at [37] per French CJ,
Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ.
PAGE 10 OF 14
Australian Government. For that reason, they are appropriately considered “internal
guidelines” or “instructions to staf ”, as described in your request.
In your request for internal review you stated:
This system grants access to sensitive information, and the public has a legitimate right
to know who is authorised to use it, why such access is granted, and what safeguards
exist to prevent misuse.
I consider the publicly available material promotes the public interest in accountability and
transparency of CCeS, in that it details eligibility criteria, considerations, review mechanisms,
and expectations of businesses who use CCeS. As such, while I accept there is public interest
in your request, I consider the public interest in transparency is satisfied in part, and the public
interest that may exist in processing your request does not overcome a finding that processing
your request would be unreasonable due to the overwhelming resource burden that would be
imposed on the agency.
Considering the length and volume of the documents, and that the publicly available material
addresses Part 2 of your request, I consider that processing this part of the request is
unreasonable in the situation where you did not review the publicly available material and
consider revising this part of your request for documents relating to certain points.
Conclusion
I am satisfied a ‘practical refusal reason’ exists under section 24AA of the FOI Act, as the work
involved in progressing your request would substantially and unreasonably divert the
resources of the Agency from its other operations as specified in section 24AA(1)(a)(i) of the
FOI Act.
Requests involving the use of computers (section 17)
Section 17 of the FOI Act requires that an agency produce a written document if it can be
produced by using a ‘computer or other equipment that is ordinarily available to the agency for
retrieving or collating stored information’ relevant to the applicant’s request (s 17(1)(c)(i)),
except where producing the document would substantially and unreasonably divert the
resources of an agency from its other operations (s 17(2)).
The Full Federal Court in
Collection Point Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (Collection
Point) [2013] FCAFC 67 considered the interaction between the two limbs of s 17:
There is considerable potential overlap between factual matters relevant to the
questions under s 17(1)(c)(i) (whether the use of a computer or other equipment is
ordinarily available) and s 17(2) of the Act (whether compliance with the obligation to
produce the requested document would be a substantial and unreasonable diversion
of the agency’s resources). The two inquiries nevertheless arise sequentially. The
satisfaction of the conditions under s 17(1) is a pre-condition for the application of s
17(2). Nor, despite the overlap, are the questions interchangeable. The satisfaction of
the conditions of s 17(1)(c)(i) does not ensure satisfaction of the conditions of s 17(2),
and vice versa.
As discussed above, to gather documents from each individual record would itself be a
substantial and unreasonable diversion of resources.
PAGE 11 OF 14
However, I am also satisfied section 17(1)(c)(i) does not apply to Part 1 of your request
because the process of creating a document containing the requested information involves a
number of manual processes.
The agency cannot use existing reports or other document production functions that are
ordinarily available to collate and retrieve the information you have requested in your FOI
request. This is because some of the information you have requested is not something that is
individually tracked.
Creation of such a document would require each business record to be examined individually
and data extracted. In some situations, the data you seek would be available in contracts or
uploaded forms, which would have to be individually opened. Producing the requested
document would require significant manual processes to locate relevant information and
essentially require the manual recording of this information into a writ en document.
Alternatively, the agency would be required to design, develop and test code, and then extract
and link the data. If this occurred, any newly generated report would need to be tested and
validated. This would necessarily involve the development of a new software or reporting
product, and I am satisfied this would go beyond a routine database query or running a report
to extract and compile the information which is considered the ‘ordinary use of a computer’.
I am also satisfied that existing computer programs and systems are not capable of functioning
independently in a manner that would enable it to locate and generate the requested
information in discrete form, such that providing this information would require manual
processes that exceed the scope of what s 17(1)(c)(i) contemplates.
Accordingly, I am satisfied the obligation under section 17(1) to create a document responsive
to Part 1 of the request does not arise.
Summary
If a decision had been made within the statutory period, I would have been satisfied that a
‘practical refusal reason’ exists under section 24AA of the FOI Act, as the work involved in
progressing your request would substantially and unreasonably divert the resources of the
Agency from its other operations as specified in section 24AA(1)(a)(i) of the FOI Act.
Further, I would have been satisfied that the obligation under section 17(1) of the FOI Act to
create a document responsive to Part 1 of your request does not arise.
PAGE 12 OF 14
PO Box 7820 Canberra BC ACT 2610
Attachment B
INFORMATION ON RIGHTS OF REVIEW
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1982
Requesting a ful explanation of a Freedom of Information (FOI) deemed refusal decision
Before you ask for a formal review of a FOI decision, you can contact us to discuss your
request. We wil explain the deemed refusal decision and the statement of reasons to you. This
allows you to correct any misunderstandings.
Requesting a formal external review of a FOI deemed refusal decision
If you consider the deemed refusal of your request is incorrect, you have the right to apply for
an external review under section 54L of the FOI Act by the Australian Information
Commissioner. Please note that a statement of reasons is not reviewable by the Australian
Information Commissioner.
Applying for external review by the Australian Information Commissioner
If you disagree with the deemed refusal of your FOI request, you wil have 60 days to apply in
writing for a review by the Australian Information Commissioner.
You can lodge your application:
Online:
www.oaic.gov.au
Post:
Australian Information Commissioner
GPO Box 5218
SYDNEY NSW 2001
Email:
xxxxx@xxxx.xxx.xx
Important:
If you are applying online, the application form the FOI Review Form is available at
Information Commissioner Review Application form
Include your contact details
Set out your reasons for objecting to the Agency’s deemed refusal decision.
PAGE 13 OF 14
Complaints to the Australian Information Commissioner and Commonwealth
Ombudsman
Australian Information Commissioner
You may complain to the Australian Information Commissioner concerning action taken by an
agency in the exercise of powers or the performance of functions under the FOI Act. There is
no fee for making a complaint. A complaint to the Australian Information Commissioner must
be made in writing. The Australian Information Commissioners contact details are:
Telephone: 1300 363 992
Website: www.oaic.gov.au
Smart Form: FOI Complaint Form
Commonwealth Ombudsman
You may also complain to the Commonwealth Ombudsman concerning action taken by an
agency in the exercise of powers or the performance of functions under the FOI. There is no
fee for making a complaint. A complaint to the Commonwealth Ombudsman may be made in
person, by telephone or in writing. The Commonwealth Ombudsman contact details are:
Phone: 1300 362 072
Website: www.ombudsman.gov.au
The Commonwealth Ombudsman generally prefers applicants to seek review before
complaining about a decision.
PAGE 14 OF 14
