FOI Request: Perpetual Centrelink Calendar 107-03040000
Posty made this Freedom of Information request to Services Australia
This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.
Dear Department of Human Services,
I request, under the Freedom of Information Act 1982, copies of the following documents:
All documents contained within the file "Perpetual Centrelink Calendar 107-03040000" as listed on this page:
http://operational.humanservices.gov.au/...
Yours faithfully,
Derek
Hello Mr Adams,
Please find attached correspondence in relation to your freedom of
information request.
Kind regards,
FOI Legal Team
FOI and Litigation Branch | Legal Services Division
Department of Human Services
Email: [1][email address]
[2]cid:image004.png@01D1B4D9.510E2740
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.
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
Dear Mr Adams
Please find a letter related to your FOI request attached.
Regards,
Authorised FOI Decision Maker
Freedom of Information Team
FOI and Litigation Branch Legal Services Division
Department of Human Services
I contend that the charge should not be imposed for several reasons, one of which is that the department is acting in bad faith and in breach of the FOI Guidelines regarding imposition of fees, and that the release of these documents is in the public interest.
The requested charge seems to breach several sections of the FOI Guidelines provided by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner, in particular: 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 4.18, 4.24 and 4.30.
Section 4.4 states that "[w]here the cost of calculating and collecting a charge might exceed the cost to the agency to process the request, it would generally be more appropriate not to impose a charge." It adds, "[i]n assessing the costs of calculating and collecting a charge, agencies should also take into account the likely costs that may be incurred by the agency, as well as other review bodies, if the applicant decides to seek further review." This has become self-evident, as the cost imposition is now being disputed.
Due to the fact that cost itself is merely $15 for an apparent 1 hour of finding documents which you already know to be 3 pages, 4.5 states "[a] charge must not be used to unnecessarily delay access or discourage an applicant from exercising the right of access conferred by the FOI Act." I contend that this fee is being imposed precisely and exclusively for this purpose.
4.6 requires that the department "should ensure that the notice to an applicant of a charge fully explains and justifies that charge", which has not been achieved with the email provided in response to my request.
4.18 states "the use of agency computers to produce copies of electronic documents is nowadays usually a negligible expense. Agencies and ministers should be guided by the ‘lowest reasonable cost’ objective in the FOI Act in deciding whether a charge specified in the Charges Regulations is warranted." You are positing that $15 should be charged for something that takes seconds to achieve in 2017, compared to when the Act was written.
4.24, provided in full: "Time used by an officer in searching for a document that is not where it ought to be, or that is not listed in the official filing system, cannot be charged to an applicant. In summary, applicants cannot be disadvantaged by poor or inefficient record keeping by agencies or ministers." It is strongly implied by the fact that the department has stated that the document is 3 pages that either the DHS has a filing system from 1982 itself, or is purposely delaying or impeding access to information.
4.30 states that "[t]he Charges Regulations do not stipulate a method for charging for part of an hour of decision-making time. If such a charge is to be imposed, it should appropriately be calculated on a proportionate basis." This section makes it clear that if the amount of time to find a document falls into the early part of an hour, it is more reasonable to not charge whatsoever for that hour.
However, the above arguments only speak to the point of the DHS acting in bad faith in regards to the request. The requested documents are also in the public interest.
These documents are from a file listed on the site map of the operation's website of the DHS as being relevant to debts due to its listing under the Debts section as 107-03040000. These documents are of interest to a substantial section of the public, in particular those persons who have been affected by the imposition of arbitrary debt notices from Centrelink. The public at large has a strong interest in this topic, as it has been considered relevant by the media for more than a month now as well. It will be difficult for the DHS to argue that this request is not in the public interest.
Furthermore, the release will increase the scrutiny, discussion, comment and review of the Government's activity, which are supported rationale under 4.72 of the guidelines.
Advising an applicant that they are liable for a minimal fee of $15 is behaviour that strongly implies the DHS is acting in bad faith. The DHS must be aware that the cost of a money order is approximately $10, and that the cost of processing these fees would cancel out the fees entirely, making the entire exercise merely for the purpose of impeding access to information for the public. The public expects better from the public service.
Yours sincerely,
Derek Adams
Dear FOI.LEGAL.TEAM,
You have not responded to my freedom of information request dispute of charges and rationale dated Feb 10, 2017 regarding release of the document "Perpetual Centrelink Calendar 107-03040000".
The Right to Know website tells me that this was delivered.
https://www.righttoknow.org.au/outgoing_...
Right to Know also informs me "By law, under all circumstances, Department of Human Services should have responded by now".
If you have not responded by close of business Wednesday 15th of March - consider this email a request for an internal review as to why this has taken so long.
If you have been formulating a long rebuttal over the past four weeks as to why I should pay $15 I suggest you take a deep breath and reconsider such actions.
Yours sincerely,
Derek Adams
Dear Mr Adams
Please find a letter in relation to your FOI request attached.
Kind regards
Authorised FOI Decision Maker
Freedom of Information Team
FOI and Litigation Branch Legal Services Division
Department of Human Services
********************************************************************** IMPORTANT: This e-mail is for the use of the intended recipient only and may contain information that is confidential, commercially valuable and/or subject to legal or parliamentary privilege. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that any review, re-transmission, disclosure, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information is prohibited and may result in severe penalties. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the sender immediately and delete all electronic and hard copies of this transmission together with any attachments. Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail **********************************************************************
Dear FOI.LEGAL.TEAM,
I have requested an external review of this decision by the OAIC.
Reference number ICR_1-8958609-367.
Yours sincerely,
Derek Adams
Dear FOI.LEGAL.TEAM,
One of the things that I have asked for in the external review is methods of contact other than email as this process is very opaque. I don't even know the name (even the first name, this is not a privacy thing - courtesy even) of the "Authorised FOI Officer" who is processing this decision like other departments do.
I've slept on this and have decided:
I do not accept your decision as is currently. In good faith I think I cannot request resolution if I do via OAIC without at least contacting you first requesting part of it. I am a reasonable person and there are questions that I have that may require rapid back and forth discussion instead of four weeks between emails that is best accomplished through an informal chat that may persuade.
Can you please advise me of a contact phone number and name so we can discuss this request?
Yours sincerely,
Derek Adams
Dear Mr Adams
You have made your FOI request using a public forum upon which departmental responses are automatically published.
For staff safety reasons, the department does not provide the names and phone numbers of staff members in these circumstances.
It is open to you to email us from a private email address or provide us with a phone number to call you.
As the reconsideration of charges was deemed to be an affirmation of the preliminary assessment of charges under section 29(7) of the FOI Act, internal review under section 54 of the FOI Act is not available to you.
Kind regards
Authorised FOI Decision Maker
Freedom of Information Team
FOI and Litigation Branch | Legal Services Division
Department of Human Services
********************************************************************** IMPORTANT: This e-mail is for the use of the intended recipient only and may contain information that is confidential, commercially valuable and/or subject to legal or parliamentary privilege. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that any review, re-transmission, disclosure, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information is prohibited and may result in severe penalties. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the sender immediately and delete all electronic and hard copies of this transmission together with any attachments. Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail **********************************************************************
Richard Smith left an annotation ()
This response is from the Department is nonsensical. Any document produced & released via a FOI request is by definition, a public document.
The fact that righttoknow.org.au automatically makes this publicly available document available on the internet is not a reason in itself to refuse to process the FOI request or make the FOI release.
JS left an annotation ()
This decision may have some relevance
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/A...
Ben Butler and Australian Securities and Investments Commission (Freedom of information) [2017] AICmr 18 (21 February 2017)
Justin Warren left an annotation ()
FOI Act Section 29 (7) is about what happens if an agency or Minister doesn't respond. It's not an affirmative decision by the agency, it's what happens if they ignore you. It basically caps the charges to the amount in the preliminary assessment; they can't raise it later on.
Section 29 (5) says they have to take "all reasonable steps" to notify you of a decision. They clearly haven't.
Also, section 29 (8) says that if they reject your contention that the charges should be reduced or waived then they have to give you written notice of the decision and the reasons for it. Which they didn't until you prodded them, and even then I'm not sure their response is in the fully correct form, because the right to review parts are incorrect.
The subsection (8) notice must include the name of the person as well as their designation, according to section 29 (9).
I reckon they are incorrect about the operation of section 54 of the FOI Act. Their lack of response to your request to reconsider the charges means the charges are not preliminary any more, that's all. You are totally allowed to request an internal review under section 54 of the FOI Act: Section 54C (1) states: "This section applies if an application for internal review of an access refusal decision or an access grant decision". They didn't refuse access, they affirmed the charges for an access grant decision.
The "deemed to be an affirmation" looks like a misreading of section 54D. Deemed affirmation kicks in 30 days after your request for an internal review, which you made on 15 March 2017, *not* the initial request. Their response is not in the correct form required by section 54C of the FOI Act.
Take it to OAIC. DHS are systematically avoiding releasing any information under FOI.
Posty left an annotation ()
FYI - I got a reply from the OAIC at this point and I have sent a private reply to the OAIC AND the DHS on March 21st.
Posty left an annotation ()
Well,
I got a response from the OAIC (I missed it in my inbox - came 30th mar) regarding the internal request for review - but I asked about the charges and the public interest have asked a followup question regarding that I'm awaiting.
"Dear Mr Adams
Thank you for your email. I apologise for the delay in my response.
Section 29(7) of the FOI Act provides that if a period of 30 days has elapsed since the applicant notifies the agency they intend to contend the charge and the agency has not made a decision, the Act deems the principal officer of the agency to have made a decision to charge the amount notified in the preliminary charges assessment. As the decision is deemed to have been made by the principal officer of the agency, it is not an decision which can be internally reviewed (s 54).
This means based upon the information provided in your email, you would not be able to request an internal review of the agency’s deemed charges decision.
Kind regards
Carl English | Assistant Review and Investigation Officer | Freedom of Information Dispute Resolution
Office of the Australian Information Commissioner"
Dear Mr Adams
Please see attached correspondence in relation to your recent Freedom of
Information request.
FOI Officer
FOI and Litigation Branch | Legal Services Division
Department of Human Services
18 Canberra Avenue, Forrest, ACT
Email: [1][email address]
[2]cid:image001.png@01CF8C5E.459B3DD0
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.
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
Dear Charlie,
Thankyou for waiving the charge, I am appreciative of this.
In addition, thankyou for adding your first name - this makes it a more personable experience.
I am slightly confused by this response - could you explain in simple terms what the difference is between the release of the documents with no charge, and the release of the documents with charge?
What reason does the condition of payment alter your decision?
On what grounds have you waived the charge? is it the public interest? please clarify.
When you refer to 'the final decision' being given on May 19th, is this purely the administrative time required to decide whether to redact appropriate portions ie "consider the document"?
or are you considering whether the information should be released at all in totality ie, any of now 108 pages?
your response is unclear.
Please advise.
Yours sincerely,
Derek
Dear Charlie,
It's the 19th and you still haven't clarified my questions above.
Touching base with you.
Hopefully today you can do this as well as supply the 108 page document.
Yours sincerely,
Derek
Dear Mr Adams
Please see attached correspondence in relation to your recent Freedom of
Information request.
Kind regards
Charlie
FOI and Litigation Branch
Legal Services Division
Department of Human Services
[1]cid:image001.png@01CF8C5E.459B3DD0
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.
References
Visible links
Dear Charlie (I think, you changed it back to Authorised FOI Decision maker! it could be anyone!),
"The department is currently preparing a final copy of the document and will provide it to you
as soon as practicable. "
As suddenly you have decided that the FOI process that I followed for the last five months, including having an external review by the OAIC somewhat non existent - that you consider it about to be provided under "Administrative Access" & the request "withdrawn".
I will only agree to this on the terms that when you do provide the document in full (redacted parts as necessary of course) it be available to myself and the rest of the public on the page I originally requested from:
http://operational.humanservices.gov.au/...
A "copy" is not the best outcome. I require it to be published and available and updated as necessary - I do not want to have another person ever to have to contact you again regarding this document.
This would be the best outcome for all parties, and as you are providing it through "administrative access" you will not need to update your FOI log.
Is this acceptable? If I do not receive an answer by close of business 5pm ACDT the 21st of may I will be forced consider this a refusal of my request and I will be in contact with the OAIC regarding my request as their timelines provided for response are short.
Yours sincerely,
Derek Adams
Sorry Charlie (I think),
I don't expect you to work on a Sunday - typo.
when I said "close of business 5pm ACDT the 21st of may"
I meant "close of business, MONDAY, 5pm ACDT the 22nd of may"
Yours sincerely,
Derek Adams
--
Dear Charlie (I think, you changed it back to Authorised FOI Decision maker! it could be anyone!),
"The department is currently preparing a final copy of the document and will provide it to you
as soon as practicable. "
As suddenly you have decided that the FOI process that I followed for the last five months, including having an external review by the OAIC somewhat non existent - that you consider it about to be provided under "Administrative Access" & the request "withdrawn".
I will only agree to this on the terms that when you do provide the document in full (redacted parts as necessary of course) it be available to myself and the rest of the public on the page I originally requested from:
http://operational.humanservices.gov.au/...
A "copy" is not the best outcome. I require it to be published and available and updated as necessary - I do not want to have another person ever to have to contact you again regarding this document.
This would be the best outcome for all parties, and as you are providing it through "administrative access" you will not need to update your FOI log.
Is this acceptable? If I do not receive an answer by close of business, MONDAY, 5pm ACDT the 22nd of may I will be forced consider this a refusal of my request and I will be in contact with the OAIC regarding my request as their timelines provided for response are short.
Yours sincerely,
Derek Adams
Posty left an annotation ()
Due to Charlie @ DHS's failure to respond in time I have asked for OAIC's advice and whether the above can be provided amongst other queries.
Dear Mr Adams
Please see attached the documents relating to your administrative release
decision in LEX 25125.
I note, the department’s original attempt to send these documents was
unsuccessful. As such, we have reduced the size of the PDF and are
attempting to send them again. Please accept our apologies for the delay.
Kind Regards
FOI Officer
FOI and Litigation Branch
Legal Services Division
Department of Human Services
[1]cid:image001.png@01CF8C5E.459B3DD0
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.
References
Visible links
Dear FREEDOMOFINFORMATION (Charlie),
I did not agree to this being provisioned through an administrative access request. This is through FOI as Irene at OAIC should have explained to you, unless she did and you're ignoring it.
I did earlier state that I would only do so if this was put on the public website - it is not, Irene explained the oaic would have no Right of review if provided through administrative access.
Incidentally- Are you planning to put it on the website as per our previous communications?
Yours sincerely,
Derek Adams
Dear Mr Adams
I refer to your email below and our previous correspondence in relation to this request.
With reference to part 3.2 of the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner Freedom of Information (FOI) Guidelines, the department may choose to provide access outside the formal FOI Act request process. As outlined in the letter dated 19 May 2017, the department released the requested information in line with the department's administrative access arrangements. Your formal request was withdrawn upon receipt of the decision.
As this decision was provided to you through the department's administrative access arrangements, the review rights provided for in the FOI Act do not apply. You are welcome to submit a new request if you are unsatisfied.
I note, the department is under no obligation to publish a decision on the disclosure log provided through the department's administrative access arrangements.
Kind Regards
FOI Practitioner
FOI and Litigation Branch
Legal Services Division
Department of Human Services
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.
Justin Warren left an annotation ()
Under s20 of the FOI Act, an agency is required to provide a document in the form requested with certain exemptions possible. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/c...
If an agency decides to provide access in an alternate form (because they use the exemptions) they have to tell you why.
In this specific case, I don't think Derek asked for the document in a particular form, so that gives DHS wiggle room to supply the document in whatever form they choose.
Which in this case appears to be a scan of a printout with incredibly poor contrast settings that render it almost unreadable. That or the process they used to reduce the size ("Reduced size" in the title) is too lossy.
One could argue that they have not provided access to the document yet, because you can't actually read it.
Dear FOI.LEGAL.TEAM (Charlie),
I think quoting part 3.2 of the FOI act is at very minimum against the spirit of the act to follow 90% of an FOI process, including discovering the documents, requesting payment for the documents, me disputing that charge, your 'preparing the documents' and then at the last possible minute providing them outside of the process.
I will consider this decision closed when OAIC tell me it is.
I am unsatisfied - and in the interests of expedience I will lodge a new request as I am not happy with the documents you have provided.
Yours sincerely,
Derek Adams
Posty left an annotation ()
I have asked for the electronic versions of the files here:
https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/p...
Dear Mr Adams
I refer to the department’s recent administrative release decision for FOI
request LEX 25125.
The department attempted to send you a copy of the document on 5 June
2017. However, it appears that the size of the PDF document was too large
for the Right to Know website. The department provided you with the
reduced size version on 9 June 2017.
It appears that the reducing the size of the PDF detracted from the
quality of the document.
The department is now providing you with a better quality copy of the PDF
document. Due to the document size, the department will send the document
over 11 emails. The attached document is part 1 of 11.
Kind Regards
FOI Officer
FOI and Litigation Branch
Legal Services Division
Department of Human Services
[1]cid:image001.png@01CF8C5E.459B3DD0
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.
References
Visible links
Dear Mr Adams
Attached is part 2 of 11.
Kind Regards
FOI Officer
FOI and Litigation Branch
Legal Services Division
Department of Human Services
[1]cid:image001.png@01CF8C5E.459B3DD0
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.
References
Visible links
Dear Mr Adams
Attached is part 3 of 11.
Kind Regards
FOI Officer
FOI and Litigation Branch
Legal Services Division
Department of Human Services
[1]cid:image001.png@01CF8C5E.459B3DD0
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.
References
Visible links
Dear Mr Adams
Attached is part 4 of 11.
Kind Regards
FOI Officer
FOI and Litigation Branch
Legal Services Division
Department of Human Services
[1]cid:image001.png@01CF8C5E.459B3DD0
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.
References
Visible links
Dear Mr Adams
Attached is part 5 of 11.
Kind Regards
FOI Officer
FOI and Litigation Branch
Legal Services Division
Department of Human Services
[1]cid:image001.png@01CF8C5E.459B3DD0
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.
References
Visible links
Dear Mr Adams
Attached is part 6 of 11.
Kind Regards
FOI Officer
FOI and Litigation Branch
Legal Services Division
Department of Human Services
[1]cid:image001.png@01CF8C5E.459B3DD0
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.
References
Visible links
Dear Mr Adams
Attached is part 7 of 11.
Kind Regards
FOI Officer
FOI and Litigation Branch
Legal Services Division
Department of Human Services
[1]cid:image001.png@01CF8C5E.459B3DD0
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.
References
Visible links
Dear Mr Adams
Attached is part 8 of 11.
Kind Regards
FOI Officer
FOI and Litigation Branch
Legal Services Division
Department of Human Services
[1]cid:image001.png@01CF8C5E.459B3DD0
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.
References
Visible links
Dear Mr Adams
Attached is part 9 of 11.
Kind Regards
FOI Officer
FOI and Litigation Branch
Legal Services Division
Department of Human Services
[1]cid:image001.png@01CF8C5E.459B3DD0
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.
References
Visible links
Dear Mr Adams
Attached is part 10 of 11.
Kind Regards
FOI Officer
FOI and Litigation Branch
Legal Services Division
Department of Human Services
[1]cid:image001.png@01CF8C5E.459B3DD0
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.
References
Visible links
Dear Mr Adams
Attached is part 11 of 11.
Kind Regards
FOI Officer
FOI and Litigation Branch
Legal Services Division
Department of Human Services
[1]cid:image001.png@01CF8C5E.459B3DD0
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.
References
Visible links
Dear FOI.LEGAL.TEAM (ATTN Bruce or Charlie),
Firstly I'd like to thank whomever has now twice (!) taken an excel spreadsheet (that I wager is likely under 5MB in size) typed in a year, pressed print, and saved to a pdf a lot of times (there's also that one page printed from Internet Explorer).
If you didn't create some form of macro/automation on this - I truly salute this near Sisyphean administrative effort - your ability to perform actions that make no technical sense to do apart from how management demands it reflects true APS commitment. I highly doubt the person that made the decision to provide the information in this format was also the person who had to go through and perform it.
If it was the same person who made the decision who performed the action (without automated tool assists) - your general administrative masochistic streak truly astounds me.
Regarding format - I did not specify a format, I did not think I would have to specify a format. It was not in the acknowledgement letter - and as such I can understand from a pure technical perspective what you provided scrapes in barely to the scope and this is what Irene from OAIC explained to me.
I have raised a new request as directed as I was not satisfied.
I will consider this SPECIFIC request complete (LEX 25125) if you update your FOI log for the documents you have provided. As stated previously - I do not believe it is in the spirit of administrative access to go through 90% of the procedure of FOI, and only at the last possible second to provide it under administrative access.
As it states in the FOI guidelines under 3.2 (https://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-infor...
"3.3 Administrative release can offer benefits to agencies and members of the public. The advantages of administrative release include that it:
advances the objects of the FOI Act to foster open government
****encourages flexibility and engagement with the public****
can rely on technology to facilitate easy collation, integration and distribution of information
can offer a lead-in to the FOI process by enabling an applicant to clarify the type of information requested from an agency
****aligns with the broader movement in public administration to facilitate dialogue and negotiation between parties before formal legal processes are used.****"
emphasis mine -only after we had engaged the legal process of FOI did DHS choose to engage in providing this under administrative access. DHS has not been flexible at all until I had to get the OAIC involved such as demanding payment for documents in the public interest, rejecting my reasons and protestations. I have asked many clarifying questions which have been all around ignored.
As such - if you update your FOI log to reflect the reality that you provided this through the FOI legal process I will be happy to close THIS specific case (LEX 25125), while my request for the original electronic files of the same documents provided in this request will remain open (LEX 30212).
Yours sincerely,
Derek Adams
Posty left an annotation ()
Ok - just to keep things up to date - due to my information commissioner review request about this, this file was ongoing at OAIC because DHS refused to update their FOI log because they deemed this decision administrative, despite me not agreeing to that at all.
the nice guy at OAIC called me recently and said "well, because your other FOI about the same file was successful, and they updated it there, they consider this closed and I asked them, and they refuse to update it again".
so you'll probably not see any further update on this request from DHS.
this is the type of petty bullshit that you need to expect from DHS.
I have actual complaints about actual responses in the second version of this request, the electronic one - so I just withdrew that complaint.
Justin Warren left an annotation ()
Great work responding to this minimal charge, Derek!