Dear FOI Officer,

I am making this request for access to documents under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth). 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://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/cen....

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 still satisfying the public interest in understanding who is permitted 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.

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 willing 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 will 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.

If there are any charges associated with processing this request, I respectfully ask that you consider reducing or waiving them due to the public interest considerations I have outlined. If you consider that this request may be too broad or likely to lead to a practical refusal, I invite you to contact me to discuss ways of refining or clarifying the scope of the request.

I look forward to your acknowledgment and decision within the statutory timeframes prescribed by the FOI Act. If you have any questions or require further clarification, please contact me at the details provided below.

Yours sincerely,

Nosey

Dear FOI Officer,

Thank you for your acknowledgment of my Freedom of Information (FOI) request. I have carefully reviewed your request to extend the statutory timeframe for processing my FOI application by an additional 30 days due to the Agency’s reduced activity period over 24 December 2024 – 1 January 2025.

I wish to advise that I do not consent to the proposed extension of time. The reason you have provided—the Agency’s reduced activity during its designated holiday period—is not a matter for which I, as the applicant, bear any responsibility, nor does it constitute a valid justification under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) (“the FOI Act”).

Under section 15(5)(b) of the FOI Act, an agency is required to make a decision on an FOI request within 30 days of receiving the request. While the Act does allow for extensions of time under certain circumstances, including consultation requirements with third parties (section 15(6)) or where an extension is agreed to by the applicant (section 15AA), your request for additional time due to internal reduced activity is not explicitly supported by the provisions of the FOI Act.

Further, the Guidelines issued by the Australian Information Commissioner under section 93A of the FOI Act (“the FOI Guidelines”) make it clear that agencies are expected to allocate sufficient resources to ensure statutory timeframes are met, even during holiday periods. The Guidelines state:

“Agencies should ensure that staffing and resources are managed to comply with the statutory timeframes for processing FOI requests, including during periods of peak leave, such as Christmas and New Year.”

The FOI Act places a statutory obligation on agencies to provide timely access to government-held information as part of the broader principle of open government. The holiday period does not exempt an agency from this obligation. Any delay caused by internal resource management issues is not a valid reason for the Agency to seek consent for an extension.

If the Agency believes it cannot meet the statutory deadline, it may apply to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) under section 15AB of the FOI Act for an extension of time. The OAIC has the authority to grant such extensions if satisfied that the request involves a complex or voluminous volume of work that would otherwise prevent timely processing. However, such an application would require the Agency to demonstrate that its reduced activity period constitutes a valid ground for an extension under the Act.

If the Agency proceeds to apply to the OAIC for an extension, I request to be notified and consulted on the matter, as required under the provisions of the FOI Act.

In summary, I do not consent to an extension of time under section 15AA of the FOI Act. I encourage the Agency to allocate the necessary resources to process my FOI request within the statutory timeframe. If the Agency believes it cannot meet the deadline, it should seek an extension under section 15AB from the OAIC, as outlined above.

I look forward to receiving your decision within the statutory timeframe required under the FOI Act. Should you require any further clarification from me to assist with processing my request, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely,
Nosey

Dear Cherie,

Thank you for your letter dated 8 January 2025 regarding my FOI request (LEX 82935). I write to formally reject the proposed practical refusal reason and challenge the agency’s assertions on several grounds.

It is difficult to accept that Services Australia, as the administrator of the Verification of Entitlement (VoE) system, does not already maintain comprehensive, centralised records of users and organisations granted access to the system. Maintaining such records is a fundamental requirement for the security and integrity of the system, as well as compliance with legal obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. This includes ensuring that only authorised individuals or entities have access to sensitive personal information.

Your explanation that the request would require over 500 hours of manual record interrogation suggests a failure in proper record-keeping and governance processes, which raises significant concerns. Furthermore, it is reasonable to expect that a system like the VoE would inherently rely on electronic logs or databases for tracking user access, which should allow for efficient retrieval and collation of the requested information.

Under section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 1982, the agency is required to produce a document containing information in response to an FOI request if the information is held electronically and can be produced with reasonable effort. Given the nature of the request and the technological capabilities of Services Australia, extracting and summarising access data should not constitute an unreasonable diversion of resources.

Additionally, the agency’s reliance on section 24AA(1)(a)(i) is not appropriate in this instance, as the request seeks specific, structured information essential for public transparency and accountability. The public has a right to understand who has access to the VoE system, the reasons for granting such access, and the safeguards in place to protect the personal information of Australians.

There will be no refinement of my request. I maintain that the requested information is necessary to serve the public interest, and it is your responsibility under the FOI Act to process my request. Should you refuse to process the request, I will not hesitate to escalate the matter, including seeking external review from the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC).

I look forward to your confirmation that the request will proceed without delay.
Yours sincerely,

noseyrosey

Dear Cherie,

I am writing to formally request an internal review of the decision dated 14 January 2025, regarding my Freedom of Information (FOI) request, reference number LEX 82935. Services Australia refused my request under section 24(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) (“the FOI Act”), claiming that a “practical refusal reason” exists pursuant to section 24AA of the FOI Act. I strongly disagree with this conclusion and will address the reasoning in detail below.

Under section 17(1) of the FOI Act, where requested information exists electronically but is not in a document, the agency is obligated to produce a written document through the use of computers or other equipment ordinarily available to the agency. Your decision asserts that extracting the information I requested (particularly in Part 1) would involve manual interrogation of over 3,000 records and require more than 500 hours. However, no explanation is provided for why existing systems cannot facilitate an automated extraction of data.

Given the nature of the Verification of Entitlement (VoE) system—interpreted by your agency as the Centrelink Confirmation eServices (CCeS)—it is implausible that access records are not digitally maintained in a format that allows for efficient retrieval. If Services Australia’s record-keeping practices genuinely prevent the production of this information within a reasonable timeframe, this raises serious governance concerns that further justify public interest in the disclosure of these records.

The resource estimates provided—500 hours for data interrogation and over 1,500 hours for third-party consultations—are excessive and inconsistent with the principles of open government under the FOI Act. Modern systems like CCeS should inherently rely on electronic logs for tracking users, approvals, and review dates. The decision does not sufficiently explain why these logs cannot be queried to produce a document summarising the requested information. Additionally, the claimed burden for third-party consultations under section 27 of the FOI Act is overstated. 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 also outlined in my original request that the disclosure of this information is critical for enhancing public confidence in the integrity and accountability of Services Australia’s management of the VoE/CCeS system. 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. Your decision fails to weigh these public interest considerations against the agency’s asserted resource burden. The FOI Act’s purpose, as outlined in section 3, is to promote government accountability and transparency. A decision to refuse my request without properly considering the public interest undermines these principles.

The consultation notice issued on 8 January 2025 did not adequately engage with the specifics of my request or explore meaningful avenues for narrowing its scope. Instead, the agency relied on general assertions of impracticality and provided no actionable alternatives. While some documents were referenced in relation to Part 2 of my request, it was not demonstrated why these publicly available documents were deemed sufficient. Furthermore, both the agency and I were affected by the Christmas break, yet Services Australia sought no extension from the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) under section 15AB of the FOI Act. This demonstrates inconsistent handling of statutory deadlines and a lack of transparency.

The FOI Guidelines issued under section 93A of the FOI Act specifically note that agencies must manage their resources to ensure compliance with statutory timeframes, including during periods of leave such as Christmas. While the agency highlighted its resource constraints during this time, these constraints are neither my responsibility nor a valid justification for refusing my request. If the agency believed it could not meet the statutory deadline, it had the option of seeking an extension of time from the OAIC. To my knowledge, no such extension was sought in this instance, despite the agency’s regular practice of doing so in other cases.

For these reasons, I firmly believe that the decision to refuse my FOI request under section 24(1) of the FOI Act is inconsistent with the Act’s principles and legal requirements. I respectfully request that the agency reconsider its decision and process Part 1 of my request by leveraging existing electronic records or databases under section 17 of the FOI Act. I also request the release of all non-publicly available documents responsive to Part 2 of my request.

Should the agency uphold its decision, I reserve the right to escalate this matter to the OAIC for review and complaint. I trust that my concerns will be addressed in the internal review process, and I look forward to receiving a timely response.

Yours sincerely,
Nosey Rosey