DAFF Style/Writing/Brand Guides
Dear Department of Agriculture Fisheries & Forestry,
This is a Freedom of Information Request for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act 1982.
I request access to the Style Guides/Brand Guides/Writing Guides currently used for the Department of Agriculture Fisheries & Forestry,
Yours faithfully,
Glenn Hamiltonshire
Dear Glenn Hamiltonshire
Acknowledgement of your Freedom of Information Request No: LEX 31964
I refer to your request, received by the Department of Agriculture,
Fisheries and Forestry on 18 July 2024 for access to documents under the
Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act) made in the following terms:
‘I request access to the Style Guides/Brand Guides/Writing Guides
currently used for the Department of Agriculture Fisheries & Forestry.’
Your address
The FOI Act requires that you provide us with an address which we can send
notices to. You have advised your electronic address is
[1][FOI #11714 email]. We will send all notices
and correspondence to this address.
Please advise us as soon as possible if you wish for correspondence to be
sent to another address or if your address changes. If you do not advise
us of changes to your address, correspondence and notices will continue to
be sent to the address specified above.
Disclosure log
Please note that information released under the FOI Act may be published
in a disclosure log on the department's website. Section 11C of the FOI
Act requires this publication, however it is subject to certain
exceptions, including where publication of personal, business,
professional or commercial information would be unreasonable.
Exclusion of junior department employee details
The department is working towards ensuring that all employees have a
choice about whether they provide their full name and direct contact
details in response to public enquiries. Where such details are included
in the scope of a request, this may add to processing time and applicable
charges as it may be necessary to consider whether the details are exempt
under the FOI Act. On this basis, unless you tell us otherwise, we will
assume that these details are out of scope of your request, and they will
be redacted under section 22 of the FOI Act.
Further assistance
If you have any questions please email [2][email address].
Regards,
FOI Contact Officer | Legal Division
E: [3][email address]
Good afternoon
Please find attached correspondence from the Department of Agriculture,
Fisheries and Forestry in relation to your FOI request LEX 31964.
Regards
FOI Contact Officer | Legal Division
E: [1][email address]
Dear FOI Contact Officer
Using the option provided by Section 29(5) of the FOI Act 1983, I seek to contend that the charge has been wrongly assessed, and that it should be substituted for no charge at all.
In making my request, I note that the decision to calculate a charge for a department's style guide/related documents is something which has been repeatedly provided by other similarly situated departments, and has been made public on the Right To Know website by other users, showing that zero charge has been generated, or any charge that *would* be generated is well within the free-5 hour charge timeline.
These include:
Example 1- Home Affairs: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/h...
Example 2- Defence: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/d...
Example 3- Finance: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/f...
Example 4- Treasury: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/t...
Given that these other departments were able to process functionally identical requests from other Right To Know users, I see it as being entirely inconsistent with the principles of the Freedom of Information Act to impose charge.
This appears to be uncomfortably common for the Department of Agriculture Fisheries & Forestry, to generate or estimate unreasonably lengthy processing times, far higher than other departments. I believe this is a wrongful process, and should be repeated, with the aim of eradicating any charge for a request like this.
If it's good enough for Defence, Treasury, Finance, and Home Affairs, surely it's goof enough for Agriculture Fisheries & Forestry.
Yours sincerely,
Glenn Hamiltonshire
Good morning
We refer to your email below, contesting the department's preliminary charges notice in respect of LEX 31964.
The department will now consider your contention and make a decision on the amount (if any) of charge payable. Section 29(6) of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) provides that the department must notify you of its decision no later than 30 days after the day on which you notified us of your request to reconsider the charges. This means you can expect a decision in respect of charges by 5 September 2024.
Kind regards
FOI Contact Officer | Legal Division
E: [email address]
__________________________________________¬_
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
GPO BOX 858 CANBERRA ACT 2601
This email and any attachments may contain information subject to legal professional privilege or information that is otherwise sensitive or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you are prohibited from using or disseminating this communication. If you have received this communication in error please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete this email.
OFFICIAL
Good afternoon
Please find attached correspondence from the Department of Agriculture,
Fisheries and Forestry in relation to your FOI request – LEX 31964.
Regards,
FOI Contact Officer | Legal Division
E: [1][email address]
CR left an annotation ()
Relevant: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/p...
You may use this in your internal review if you wish
Good luck
Dear Foi,
I am writing a reply to inform you that I have applied for an IC review with the OAIC with regards to the decision to impose a charge in this case.
Yours sincerely,
Glenn Hamiltonshire
CR left an annotation ()
Hi Glenn,
Just letting you know that you have the opportunity to request an internal review. I would recommend it in this case as an IC Review can take years to finalise.
If you wish, you are free to use the reasons I provided to the TGA in August when I contested their charges. In that instance, they ultimately decided to waive the fees. You can find my arguments here:
https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/p...
Just be sure to adjust the final paragraph to reflect the specific amount of charges associated with your request.
Best of luck.
OFFICIAL
Dear Glenn Hamiltonshire
Please find attached correspondence from the Department of Agriculture,
Fisheries and Forestry in relation to your request for Information
Commissioner review of a charges decision (LEX-31964 / MR24-01611).
We note that a decision on LEX-31964 is now due by Tuesday 7 January 2025.
Kind regards
FOI Contact Officer | Legal Division
E: [1][email address]
OFFICIAL
Good afternoon
Please see attached correspondence from the Department of Agriculture,
Fisheries and Forestry in relation to your FOI request (LEX-31964).
Kind regards
FOI Contact Officer | Legal Division
E: [1][email address]
Dear FOI Contact Officer
I am contacting indicating that I am requesting a internal review into the decisions reached. To be specific, I am seeking to challenge and overturn the decisions regarding Document 1 and the s 47(1)(b) exemptions. For the avoidance of doubt, I do not challenge the exemptions under 47E(d).
In raising my objections, I make note of the option provided by the OAIC in McKinnon and Department of Immigration and Citizenship [2012] AICmr 34 (‘McKinnon’). In McKinnon, where a government department had sought to cite the commercially valuable information exemption as a way to omit documents relating to the commercial values of facilities maintained by Serco, arguing that such documents were considered commercially valuable for the third party. This claim was rejected by the AIC, who stated that even documents covering the internal business affair from Serco, "This by itself is not enough to establish that the information has commercial value for the purposes of s 47’"
If such documents were not considered exempt in this case, a decision later upheld by the OAIC at a later date (see Maritime Union of Australia and Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development), I do not believe such exemptions would continue to apply.
I further note that, while not applicable for the purposes of this process, this decision to rely on exemptions and redactions based on the use of First Nations artwork and artists is uncommon, given the use of First Nations art has been publicly revealed in full in other similar FOI processes, such as the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water's style guide (https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/d...).
I believe that it is not in the interests of the Department to maintain this blanked exemption, and the entire Style Guide should be released without redactions (besides those for purposes like 47E(d)).
Yours sincerely,
Glenn Hamiltonshire
OFFICIAL
Good afternoon
Acknowledgement of Internal Review no: IR 31964
The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (the Department)
acknowledges receipt of your application for internal review under the
Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act) dated 9 January 2025.
The statutory deadline for providing a decision on this request is
currently 10 February 2025.
We will contact you at this email address. Please advise if you would
prefer us to use an alternative means of contact.
If you have any questions, please contact [1][email address].
Regards
FOI Contact Officer | Legal Division
E: [2][email address]
CR left an annotation ()
I would recommend having a look at the released document on this request: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/d... specifically page 2 - 4. This is the notice that the OAIC sends to agencies as a recommendation that charges are waived. It is the Information Commissioners view (at least in most cases) that the cost of calculating and collecting a charge may exceed the amount of the charge itself ($403.45).
It may be worth bringing this to DAFF's attention by quoting or paraphrasing the FOI Commissioner's comments in the relevant case (‘ABX’ and Department of Veterans’ Affairs (Freedom of information)
[2022] AICmr57 (29 July 2022))
Best of luck.