Dear Department of Human Services,

Please provide all documents relating to the Open Tender of and contract for Management support services by Services Australia awarded to Partners in Performance International PL ("PIP") including documents relating to the :

1. calling of the tender
2. the contract awarded to PIP (please provide a copy)
3. any technical specifications or requirements issued by Services Australia in relation to the tender or contract

The following references on AusTender may be helpful:

CN ID: CN3665779
SON ID: SON3538332

Agency Reference ID: D365030094

Given the large amount of public money associated with this tender (>$3M), I ask that a public interest in the transparency of this matter be recognised; and the ordinarily applicable FOI fee be consequently waived.

Yours faithfully,

John Smith

Dear FOI.LEGAL.TEAM,

Given the large amount of public money associated with this tender (>$3M), I ask that a public interest in the transparency of this matter be recognised; and the ordinarily applicable FOI fee be consequently waived in its entirety, on the grounds of a public interest in the proper use of public expenditure.

Alternatively, I request that the fee be waived on the ground of financial hardship.

Yours sincerely,

John Smith

Dear FOI.LEGAL.TEAM,

I have sent through evidence to the email address, as requested.

Please waive the associated FOI fee both in reliance on that evidence, AND in reliance on the public interest reasons that I have raised.

Yours sincerely,

John Smith

Dear FOI.LEGAL.TEAM,

I seek internal review of this decision. In my email to you enclosing my low-income health card, I stated that the name 'John Smith' is a pseudonym. I do not understand why in your reasons, you have decided that there is an identity issue between the pseudonym used to make this FOI request; and my provided documents.

Why was I not contacted to clarify the issue of whether the low income card belonged to be, before this adverse finding was made? It is unreasonable and lacks natural justice.

It is my understanding that the use of pseudonyms is allowed through the FOI guidelines.

In the interests of confirming that the card belongs to me, the last 4 characters of the CRN on the card provided to you; was '137T'. Would you be willing to confirm that is the case?

-Public interest ground-

I note that in your reasons you have disputed my claim that an attempt at oversight of a large amount of spending by a government agency, isn't a sufficient public interest reason.

It may be the case that the procurement was made under government rules. That is besides the point. Whether the taxpayer got value for money through the procurement, can only be discerned by the public if the details of transactions are known. It is also besides the point that these transactions are already overseen by parliament and the government. The FOI act is for members of the public to make requests that are of interest to the public, regardless of whether those transactions are already of interest to the government.

While this specific transaction might appear to be unimportant in isolation, it is part of a pattern of increased government outsourcing within the APS, and especially Services Australia in recent years. The increased use of private contractors within public agencies has been the subject of much public reporting.

For instance; these practices have been mentioned in the Australian Financial Review:
https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/gov...

The ABC:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-09/l...

Among other publications.

To re-iterate my point; this FOI request is a part of a series of FOI requests that intend to investigate the use of outsourcing within government departments. This is what makes the request in the public interest.

While I could have attempted to include 20 or 30 outsourcing contracts within a single FOI, I wanted to avoid an unreasonable burden upon your agency.

Please include these reasons within my request for an internal review.

Yours sincerely,

John Smith

Dear FOI.LEGAL.TEAM,

Your assertion that these documents would provide nothing new; that they have been made redundant by various senate inquiries is totally unreasonable.

I will be appealing this to the OAIC.

Yours sincerely,

John Smith