Dear Department of Human Services,

I am writing to request the following, under the Freedom of Information Act:

"Copies of reports into 'suspected breaches of the APS Code of Conduct' by Centrelink staff at the Boronia, Ringwood or Lilydale Centrelink Service Centres in Victoria."

There is precedent for releasing this information under the FOI Act. The Department's FOI Disclosure Log lists 14 such reports having been released on 16 October 2012.

To assist you in locating these documents, the previously released documents have been entitled 'Final Report of the Decision Maker on Suspected Breach of the Code of Conduct by xxx', however please note that I would not seek to limit the scope of my request to documents with this title.

To assist in the processing of my request, I am willing to limit its scope to only those documents prepared since January 2010, to the present. I am, of course, expecting the personally-identifying information of the individuals involved to be redacted.

Yours faithfully,

Vera Lystich

Dear Delegate,

Thank you for your letter dated 28 January in which you wrote that you have decided to impose a charge of $121.55 in relation to access request LEX 12004.

I am writing to contend that a charge should not be imposed, on four grounds.

1. Financial hardship

The charge, if imposed, would constitute approximately a third (32.4%) of my weekly disposable income.

On this basis, although I am not in receipt of a social security payment, it is my contention that the proposed charge would cause me financial hardship.

2. Public interest

The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC)'s Freedom of Information guidelines confirm that you may waive or vary a charge if releasing the document in question would be in the general public interest (1).

In "Carver and Fair Work Ombudsman"(2), a similar case involving the release of documents relating to APS Code of Conduct investigations, the FOI Commissioner found that:

"the principal factor favouring disclosure in this IC review is the importance of transparency in investigations of the work-related conduct of public officials… the public interest in ensuring that complaints… are properly and appropriately investigated and dealt with."

On this basis, given there is precedent that the release of reports of APS Code of Conduct investigations is in the public interest, I contend the charge should not be imposed.

3. FOI Disclosure Log

In my initial request, I advised that documents of a similar nature to what I was requesting were released on the Department's FOI Disclosure Log, pursuant to s. 11C of the FOI Act, on 16 October 2012.

The OAIC's FOI Guidelines indicate that where "the document [requested] is similar to a document that the agency has published on its website under s11C of the Act,"(1) it may be appropriate for an agency to waive an access charge.

4. Calculation of charge

I have examined the documents previously released by the Department in its FOI Disclosure Log and wish to contend that the hours calculated for decision-making are in excess of what is required.

I appreciate that search and retrieval time must be undertaken, so this component of the charge is not relevant to this point.

The redacted portions of the similar documents released on the Department's FOI Disclosure Log appear to be mostly personal information such as names.

If the document relevant to this request contains similar instances of personal information, I do not believe 10.35 hours is a reasonable estimate of decision-making time.

--

It is my belief that, when all four grounds are considered together, the Department should exercise its discretion to waive the processing charge it has decided to impose.

If you would like to clarify any of the reasoning above, please do not hesitate to contact me by reply email.

Yours sincerely,

Vera Lystich

(1) Office of the Australian Information Commissioner. (2014). Guidelines issued by the Australian Information Commissioner under s 93A of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Part 4, pp. 13-15). Retrieved from http://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-inform....
(2) Carver and Fair Work Ombudsman [2011] AICmr 5 (27 July 2011)

Good evening,

Thank you for your email.

As per your request, I have mailed a hard copy of my household budget to the Department's FOI team postal address listed on its website.

I have marked the paperwork with your reference number for this request, LEX 12004.

Please note that my earlier advice on 29 January relating to the amount of the imposed charge as a percentage of my disposable income is no longer correct. As of 31 January, my partner is no longer employed. The impact of this on my household has been outlined in the budget that I have mailed to you.

Yours sincerely,

Vera Lystich

Good evening,

Thank you for your email.

While I do not agree with some of your comments, specifically relating to the applicability of the Carver case to this situation, I would like to thank you for deciding to reduce the charge by 50%.

I am happy to pay the deposit requested to receive a decision on my request.

Does the Department have other facilities to receive payments, such as EFT? Otherwise, I would need to obtain a bank cheque, which comes at a cost of approximately $6.00.

Yours sincerely,

Vera Lystich