Dear Department of Human Services,

If possible, please treat this as an informal or administrative request. Otherwise, please treat this as a formal request for documents under the Freedom of Information Act 1982.

I request a copy of the Multical Entitlement and Debt Calculator, which I believe is a Microsoft Excel workbook.

I request an electronic copy of the Excel file itself, not a printout, delivered via email. If electronic delivery via email is not possible for some reason, I can supply a secure upload facility where it can be uploaded via a browser.

Yours faithfully,

Justin Warren

Dear Jessica,

Thank you for your letter of 12 July 2017.

I note that the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the FOI Act) s20 (2) states that:

"Subject to subsection (3) and to section 22, where the applicant has requested access in a particular form, access shall be given in that form."

I have asked for access in a particular form: "an electronic copy of the Excel file" not of a printout of the spreadsheet as a PDF.

The macros and calculations embedded in the Excel file are a central part of the information I have requested, and cannot be supplied merely by printing out what appears on the screen. You are incorrect in your assertion that the PDF you have located fits the scope of my request. It does not.

Please reconsider your response.

Yours sincerely,

Justin Warren

Dear FOI.LEGAL.TEAM,

I contend that the charges have been both wrongly assessed and should not be imposed because they deal with the incorrect document.

The document the Department has identified does not match the scope of my request.

Yours sincerely,

Justin Warren

Dear Department of Human Services,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Department of Human Services's handling of my FOI request 'Copy of Multical Entitlement and Debt Calculator'.

I assert that the scope of my request was incorrectly assessed at the outset. I very clearly requested “an electronic copy of the Excel file itself.”

As I noted in my email on 13 July 2017, s 20 (2) of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the FOI Act) states that “Subject to subsection (3) and to section 22, where the applicant has requested access in a particular form, access shall be given in that form.”

In the Department’s letter on 12 July providing a preliminary assessment of the charge, the Department has incorrectly asserted that it “located a PDF version of a document (totalling 1 page) that fits the scope of your FOI request.” A PDF document is not an Excel workbook. This is neither the document I requested, nor is it in the particular form I requested.

I informed the Department of my view in my email of 13 July 2017, stating:

“The macros and calculations embedded in the Excel file are a central part of the information I have requested, and cannot be supplied merely by printing out what appears on the screen. You are incorrect in your assertion that the PDF you have located fits the scope of my request. It does not.”

The Department simply asserted that it disagreed with my view in its email of 13 July 2017, stating:

“The department disagrees with your view. In accordance with section 29 of the Freedom of Information Act 1982, a charge is payable in relation to your request as previously advised.”

The Department did not, at that time, refuse access to the document I requested under s 20 (3) of the FOI Act or s 22 of the FOI Act, as required by s 20 (2) of the FOI Act.

I therefore asserted that the charges have been wrongly assessed, as they deal with the wrong document. Charges have been assessed for access to a document I did not request.

In the Department’s letter on 18 August 2017 regarding its reconsideration of the charges it, somewhat bizarrely, chose to refuse to reduce the charges on public interest grounds, asserting that

“While I accept that the department’s management of compliance and debt-related issues has attracted significant media attention, consideration of the public interest is not primarily concerned with curiosity or commentary.”

This is despite the specific wording of s 3 (2) of the FOI Act stating that:

“ (2) The Parliament intends, by these objects, to promote Australia’s representative democracy by contributing towards the following:
(a) increasing public participation in Government processes, with a view to promoting better‑informed decision‑making;
(b) increasing scrutiny, discussion, comment and review of the Government’s activities.”

Discussion and commentary is specifically mentioned as one of the objects of the FOI Act.

The Department has then turned its attention, at long last, to s 20 of the FOI Act.

The Department asserted that

“Freedom of Information guidelines issued by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner are silent on the subject of section 20 of the FOI Act.”

I draw the Department’s attention to paragraphs 3.177 and 3.178 of the Freedom of Information guidelines issued by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (the FOI Guidelines) at this handy URL https://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-infor... which I managed to locate after approximately 17 seconds of searching. These FOI Guidelines clearly state that the exceptions available under s 20 of the FOI Act are limited.

The Department has, at this late stage of proceedings, decided that it will now refuse access to the document in the form I have requested, citing s 20(3)(a) of the FOI Act, that “access to the document in the form requested would interfere unreasonably with the operations of the agency.”

Oddly, the Department then moves into a discussion of guidelines issued by the Attorney-General’s Department (the AGD Guidelines), specifically paragraph 3.58. The Department quotes from sections of this paragraph, but I find the full context to be more illuminating, and have reproduced it below:

“3.58 Security and privacy issues relating to information stored as metadata held within Microsoft Office documents have been identified. Usually an agency will not intend to provide access to a document with information that has been designated as ‘hidden’ (eg personal details of authors, revision history, review comments) or information that allows collaboration on writing and editing the document. Therefore, it is preferable that all Microsoft Office documents are converted into PDF format, or have their metadata cleansed using an agency approved process, prior to being sent outside the agency network.”

This paragraph concerns itself with ‘hidden’ data, as partially enumerated: "personal details of authors, revision history, review comments". While the Department notes that conversion to a PDF is one method suggested in the AGD Guidelines, having the metadata cleansed is also an option provided. The FOI Act handily provides a mechanism that allows for removing these kinds of details via s 22 that is explicitly referred to in s 20 (2) of the FOI Act, yet the Department has chosen not to avail itself of this mechanism.

The Department has then asserted that “information that allows collaboration on writing and editing the document” is somehow analogous to Excel formulas and that these formulas should therefore be cleansed from the document before release. This assertion is nonsensical. The formulas in a spreadsheet are an inherent part of using a spreadsheet, which the Department tangentially admits when it refers to them as “operationally specific details”. The formulas are not metadata or ‘hidden’ data that would raise privacy or security issues of the kind that paragraph 3.58 is discussing.

The Department then asserts that providing access to the Excel spreadsheet “in editable form” would lead to a rush of people asking the Department how to use the tool. The scenario envisaged by the Department, while entertaining, is not reasonable to expect.

While the department has not chosen to assert that the document, or parts of it, are conditionally exempt under s 11A(5) of the FOI Act, s 11B(4) of the FOI Act discusses factors that are irrelevant “for the purposes of working out whether access to a conditionally exempt document would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest under subsection 11A(5)”, i.e.:

“(4) The following factors must not be taken into account in deciding whether access to the document would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest:
(a) access to the document could result in embarrassment to the Commonwealth Government, or cause a loss of confidence in the Commonwealth Government;
(b) access to the document could result in any person misinterpreting or misunderstanding the document;
(c) the author of the document was (or is) of high seniority in the agency to which the request for access to the document was made;
(d) access to the document could result in confusion or unnecessary debate.
“
The Department’s assertions that people might misinterpret or misunderstand the document, or become confused, would be deemed irrelevant if the Department were attempting to refuse access to the document as contrary to the public interest. While the Department is not explicitly attempting to do so under s 11A(5) of the FOI Act here, the argument made by the Department is analogous, and therefore incorrect.

The Department further suggests that all customer service staff might need to become trained in the use of the Multical tool. The Department did not choose to train all customer service staff in the details of the Online Compliance Intervention program, instead choosing to train certain “specialist compliance staff” to whom customers could be referred via a particular phone number. If this level of training was adequate for the very heavily publicised OCI program, then it is difficult to see how a higher level of training would be required for the theoretical (at this stage) case of the Multical spreadsheet becoming publicly available.

The other form of this fantastical scenario that the Department has described so vividly is that customers will be clamouring for the Department’s assistance to understand how their debts have been calculated by the tool. May I be so bold as to suggest that helping customers might form part of the duties of staff employed at the Department of Human Services?

The Department implies that Subject Matter Experts will be inundated with requests from customer service staff rushing to assist customers, with exuberant helpfulness that appears unprecedented, on how to correctly use the Multical tool. It astounds me that getting access to a single Excel workbook and asking for help in using it from frontline staff can override all existing policies and procedures the Department has. I wonder why nobody has thought of using this tactic before? Is this override ability limited to the Multical spreadsheet, or will any old spreadsheet do? Can I ask Centrelink customer service to assist me to use any other documents obtained via FOI?

The Department then asserts that the formulas contained with the Multical tool are “sensitive information”. As already discussed, paragraph 3.58 of the AGD Guidelines deals with metadata and hidden data that is incidental to the content of the document and could readily be dealt with using the existing mechanisms within, e.g. s 22 of the FOI Act. The formulas are part of the content of the document. I’m sure the Attorney-General’s department will be only too happy to explain what metadata is to you.

Finally, the Department’s assertion that “the document proposed for processing is within the scope of your request and you remain liable to pay the charge for access to the PDF” is incorrect. The Department is now, as of this letter, refusing access to the document in the form I requested and is attempting to provide access in another form under s 20(3)(a), albeit incorrectly.

Go back to the beginning and try again.

I will also be raising a complaint with the Office of the Information Commissioner about the handling of this request, as well as an external review of the decisions made by the Department thus far.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/c...

Yours faithfully,

Justin Warren

Dear FOI.LEGAL.TEAM,

You state in your letter that "the form of access to this document is a matter for the substantive decision for your FOI request which has not yet been settled." yet you have affirmed that the charges assessed are correct.

I do not see how you can arrive at the view "that the amount of $14.55 is reasonable and represents the lowest possible cost for the department to process your request" if the form of access to the document has not yet been settled.

You appear to have assessed a charge for a document that may not be the one you actually provide. It is certainly not the form that I requested, which, as I have explained on multiple occasions and at length, is critically important.

I applaud your masterful use of satire. I would find it difficult to construct a more absurd example of bureaucratic incompetence than what DHS has managed to achieve in its response to this FOI request. It will certainly serve as a far more powerful example of how DHS is an arrogant and out-of-touch institution by virtue of coming from DHS itself, rather than being something made up.

Thank you for your tireless efforts to sabotage the reputation of DHS. I understand how the thrill of rebellion can make an otherwise intolerable existence less painful. I hope your efforts are successful in helping me to rally support for a major overhaul of DHS' administration, and that you will be freed from the work that you clearly hate so much.

Yours in solidarity,

Justin Warren