Salary ranges for Band 4 and Band 5 contract employees
Dear FOI Officer at Australia Post,
Under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) (the FOI Act), I request access to information held by Australia Post regarding the current salary ranges and the number of employees within Bands 4 and 5 of your internal classification system.
Details of Request:
I seek access to a document or information that provides:
1. The minimum and maximum salary ranges for Bands 4 and 5, as defined in Australia Post’s classification system for employees.
2. The number of employees currently classified within Band 4 and Band 5, respectively, as of the date of this request.
Important Notes to Address Grounds for Refusal:
1. Document Creation Using Section 17 of the FOI Act:
• If no single document exists containing this information, I request that Australia Post use its ordinary computer systems to generate such a document by extracting and combining data held in its employee records or other databases. Section 17 obligates the agency to produce the requested information if it can be done using normal business systems.
• I am requesting this in written form only, not in electronic format such as computer disks or tapes.
2. Exclusions to Narrow the Scope:
• I do not require any information about specific employees, such as names, identifiers, or job titles.
• I am not seeking information on bands other than Band 4 and Band 5.
• I do not require draft documents or internal deliberative materials.
3. Specificity:
• I am requesting finalised information as of the most recent reporting period available.
4. Public Interest and Applicability:
• As a Government Business Enterprise, Australia Post is subject to transparency obligations. Disclosing this information would enhance transparency in remuneration structures and foster equitable decision-making in salary negotiations. This request does not seek commercially sensitive or private employee data.
I look forward to your acknowledgment of this request and your decision within the statutory timeframe.
Yours sincerely,
John Smith
Thank you for your email.
This is an automated response to confirm that your email was received by
Australia Post’s Freedom of Information (FOI) mailbox.
Please note this mailbox is monitored between 9 am to 5 pm on Monday to
Friday, excluding Victorian public holidays.
If you are seeking information on how to lodge a FOI request, information
is available on Australia Post’s website
[1]https://auspost.com.au/about-us/corporat...
If your email is a request for documents under the FOI Act, that request
will be managed and answered in accordance with the FOI Act.
Should your request not meet the requirements of the FOI Act, you will be
contacted by a FOI Team member within 14 days.
Regards,
Freedom of Information Team
Australia Post
Australia Post is committed to providing our customers with excellent
service. If we can assist you in any way please telephone 13 13 18 or
visit our website.
The information contained in this email communication may be proprietary,
confidential or legally professionally privileged. It is intended
exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. You
should only read, disclose, re-transmit, copy, distribute, act in reliance
on or commercialise the information if you are authorised to do so.
Australia Post does not represent, warrant or guarantee that the integrity
of this email communication has been maintained nor that the communication
is free of errors, virus or interference.
If you are not the addressee or intended recipient please notify us by
replying direct to the sender and then destroy any electronic or paper
copy of this message. Any views expressed in this email communication are
taken to be those of the individual sender, except where the sender
specifically attributes those views to Australia Post and is authorised to
do so.
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
References
Visible links
1. https://auspost.com.au/about-us/corporat...
OFFICIAL
Dear Mr Smith,
Find attached correspondence for your attention.
Regards,
Freedom of Information Team
Australia Post
Australia Post is committed to providing our customers with excellent
service. If we can assist you in any way please telephone 13 13 18 or
visit our website.
The information contained in this email communication may be proprietary,
confidential or legally professionally privileged. It is intended
exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. You
should only read, disclose, re-transmit, copy, distribute, act in reliance
on or commercialise the information if you are authorised to do so.
Australia Post does not represent, warrant or guarantee that the integrity
of this email communication has been maintained nor that the communication
is free of errors, virus or interference.
If you are not the addressee or intended recipient please notify us by
replying direct to the sender and then destroy any electronic or paper
copy of this message. Any views expressed in this email communication are
taken to be those of the individual sender, except where the sender
specifically attributes those views to Australia Post and is authorised to
do so.
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
OFFICIAL
Dear FOI Review Officer,
Request for Internal Review: FOI Ref 2025-00380
I write to request an internal review of the decision dated 10 December 2024, which refused access to documents under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) (FOI Act). My original request sought:
1. The minimum and maximum salary ranges for Bands 4 and 5, as defined in Australia Post’s classification system for employees.
2. The number of employees currently classified within Band 4 and Band 5, respectively, as at 20 November 2024.
The refusal to provide this information relies on exemptions under sections 7(2) and 47 of the FOI Act. However, these justifications do not withstand scrutiny, which I’ve outlined in the lettered points below.
A) Mischaracterisation of the requested documents as “commercial activities”
The decision hinges on the assertion that the documents sought are exempt under section 7(2) because they relate to “commercial activities” carried on by Australia Post. This claim conflates administrative workforce management with commercial, profit-seeking operations.
I agree that section 7(3) defines “commercial activities” as activities carried out on a commercial basis in competition with private entities. Salary ranges and aggregated employee numbers do not meet this definition:
• The information is administrative, not commercial. Workforce remuneration is an operational matter, not a profit-generating activity. It bears no direct connection to customer-facing services or competitive strategies.
• There is no competitive nexus. There is no evidence—which the FOI Officer is burdened to provide—that disclosing general salary band data would affect Australia Post’s ability to compete in the marketplace. Salary information is too abstract to inform pricing, product offerings or strategic business decisions. Without departmental specificity (this was not requested) and a further breakdown of the information (also not requested), the FOI Officer has demonstrably failed to meet the criteria for this exemption.
Also, citing Re Papps and Australian Postal Corporation does not establish that all internal documents are commercial in nature. That case addressed specific operational decisions tied directly to profit-driven activities. Salary bands lack this direct link.
B) Misapplication of Australian Postal Corporation v Allan Johnston
The refusal decision also attempted to use Australian Postal Corporation v Allan Johnston (2007) to argue that documents can be exempt if one of their purposes relates to commercial activities. This interpretation is demonstrably incorrect in this context:
• The primary purpose is administrative. Salary bands and broad employee numbers are internal workforce data created for administrative and HR purposes, not to serve a commercial function. The Allan Johnston decision applies where documents have a direct and substantial connection to profit-seeking activities, which is absent here.
• The connection to harm was tenuous at best. The FOI Officer speculates that disclosure would allow competitors to poach staff or gain an advantage in business strategies. This is unsubstantiated. Aggregated salary data is too general to support such claims, and the FOI Officer fails to provide any specific evidence of how this could occur.
• The public’s interest distinguishes this case. Unlike Allan Johnston, this request involves basic remuneration data with significant public interest implications. As a government-owned entity, Australia Post has heightened obligations to transparency.
The strongest precedent for this request is not in unrelated legal cases, but in Australia Post’s own historical evidence. Australia Post semi-regularly publishes the salaries of “Other Highly Paid Staff” in its remuneration reports. Salary ranges are tabled and quantities of employees are reported, even average base salaries. In its essence, the FOI request asked to define only two salary ranges (even broader than those in these reports) within the confines of Australia Post’s internal “Bands” nomenclature, as well quantities.
Publically releasing this information in the form described either proves it is in the public’s interest (and is Australia Post’s responsibility to report it as a GBE) and/or competitively inconsequential.
The FOI Officer’s reliance on the aforementioned case improperly broadens its scope to include administrative information unrelated to competitive activities.
C) Failure to demonstrate harm under section 47
The FOI Act requires clear evidence that disclosure would “destroy or diminish” the commercial value of the requested information. The refusal does not meet this standard:
• As mentioned, the refusal lacked specificity. The decision provides no concrete evidence or examples of how salary band data would harm Australia Post’s commercial interests. Generalised claims about poaching or strategic disadvantage are purely speculative.
• The data is not commercially sensitive. Aggregated salary ranges and employee numbers do not provide actionable intelligence that could give competitors an advantage. This type of information is routinely published by other government-owned entities without harm, e.g. nbn co. The FOI Officer’s listing of Australia Post’s competitors does not prove the contrary.
In short, speculation does not satisfy the FOI Act’s high threshold for withholding documents under section 47.
D) Public interest outweighs speculative harm
The refusal decision fails to adequately consider the strong public interest in disclosing the requested information.
• There must be accountability for taxpayer-funded operations. Australia Post is a government-owned business enterprise and transparency in remuneration is crucial to maintaining public trust in its operations.
• As mentioned, there is no genuine, evidenced commercial sensitivity. Non-specific salary band data does not expose proprietary methods or strategic decisions, and its disclosure serves public accountability without compromising Australia Post’s ability to compete, strongly proven by Australia Post’s own alternative disclosures.
The FOI Act is grounded in the principle that transparency is the default, and exemptions must be tightly confined. In this case, public interest far outweighs any speculative harm posited by the FOI Officer.
E) Procedural deficiencies in the decision
The FOI Act requires decision-makers to provide clear, evidence-based reasons for refusing access to documents. The refusal decision did not:
• Explain how the requested information directly relates to “commercial activities” under section 7(2).
• Provide any substantive evidence or analysis to support the claim of commercial harm under section 47.
These procedural deficiencies render the decision insufficiently reasoned and non-compliant with the FOI Act.
For the reasons outlined above, I respectfully request that the internal review:
1. Reassess the decision to refuse access under sections 7(2) and 47.
2. Consider the administrative nature of the requested documents and the strong public interest in their disclosure.
I trust that this internal review will recognise that the requested information does not meet the threshold for exemption and should be disclosed in accordance with the FOI Act’s objectives of transparency and accountability.
In the event that the internal review does not resolve this matter to my satisfaction, I am prepared to exercise my right to seek an independent review by the Australian Information Commissioner. I understand that I may apply to the Commissioner for review within 60 days of the internal review decision or earlier if no decision is made within the statutory timeframe.
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s...
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
John Smith
Thank you for your email.
This is an automated response to confirm that your email was received by
Australia Post’s Freedom of Information (FOI) mailbox.
Please note this mailbox is monitored between 9 am to 5 pm on Monday to
Friday, excluding Victorian public holidays.
If you are seeking information on how to lodge a FOI request, information
is available on Australia Post’s website
[1]https://auspost.com.au/about-us/corporat...
If your email is a request for documents under the FOI Act, that request
will be managed and answered in accordance with the FOI Act.
Should your request not meet the requirements of the FOI Act, you will be
contacted by a FOI Team member within 14 days.
Regards,
Freedom of Information Team
Australia Post
Australia Post is committed to providing our customers with excellent
service. If we can assist you in any way please telephone 13 13 18 or
visit our website.
The information contained in this email communication may be proprietary,
confidential or legally professionally privileged. It is intended
exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. You
should only read, disclose, re-transmit, copy, distribute, act in reliance
on or commercialise the information if you are authorised to do so.
Australia Post does not represent, warrant or guarantee that the integrity
of this email communication has been maintained nor that the communication
is free of errors, virus or interference.
If you are not the addressee or intended recipient please notify us by
replying direct to the sender and then destroy any electronic or paper
copy of this message. Any views expressed in this email communication are
taken to be those of the individual sender, except where the sender
specifically attributes those views to Australia Post and is authorised to
do so.
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
References
Visible links
1. https://auspost.com.au/about-us/corporat...