Audit of State Goverment Departments Implementation of The Freedom of Information Act 1991 SA

Ombudsman SA
An audit of state government departments

implementation of the
Freedom of Information Act 1991 (SA)
May 2014
PO Box 3651
Rundle Mall
Adelaide SA 5000
Telephone 08 8226 8699
Toll free 1800 182 150 Outside metropolitan area only
Facsimile 08 8226 8602
ombudsman@ombudsman.sa.gov.au
www.ombudsman.sa.gov.au
1
CONTENTS

EXECUTIVESUMMARY 2
SUMMARYOFPROPOSEDRECOMMENDATIONS 3
PART1-THEAUDITPROCESS 10
PART2-THEFOIACTANDDEVELOPMENTS 14
PART3-OBJECTSOFTHEFOIACT 19
PART4-FOISTAFFING,ACCREDITATION&POLICIES 23
PART5-FOIAPPLICATIONNUMBERS&RESPONSETIMES 29
PART6-JUSTIFYINGFOIDETERMINATIONS-SEARCHINGFORDOCUMENTS 41
PART7A-JUSTIFYINGFOIDETERMINATIONS-CLAIMINGEXEMPTIONS 52
PART7B-JUSTIFYINGFOIDETERMINATIONS-EXEMPTIONS&THEPUBLICINTEREST 70
PART8-MINISTERIALNOTING 83
PART9-PROMOTINGFOI 91
PART10-AWAYFORWARD 96
APPENDIX1-ABBREVIATIONS 102
APPENDIX2-AUDITQUESTIONNAIRE 103

2
EXECUTIVESUMMARY
Government-heldinformationisapublicresource;andthepublicsrighttoaccesstothis
informationiscentraltothefunctioningofaparticipativedemocracy.Freedomofinformation
(FOI)legislationisonemeansbywhichthepubliccanunderstand,reviewandparticipatein
governmentdecision-making.
1
However,itshouldonlyhavetobeusedasalastresort.
TheFreedomofInformationAct1991(SA)hasnowbeeninoperationinthisstatefortwo
decades.
Thisauditisasnapshotofhow12governmentdepartments(agencies)aremanagingtheir
responsibilitiesundertheAct,focussingprincipallyonthe2012-13financialyear.Italso
drawsinpartontheOmbudsmansexperiencesasareviewauthorityundertheAct.
Thestategovernmentsrecentpolicyinitiativesonproactivereleaseofinformationaretimely,
andrelevanttothedigitalage.However,thereisadisconnectbetweentheseinitiativesand
theAct,andwhattheauditgenerallyfoundtobetheagenciesapproachtoinformation
disclosureundertheAct:
theActisoutdatedanditsprocessesbelongtopre-electronictimes
theagenciesimplementationoftheActiswanting,anddemonstratesalackof
understandingorcommitmenttothedemocraticprincipleswhichunderpintheAct.

Theauditrevealedthat:
mostoftheagenciesarenotcopingwiththevolumeandcomplexnatureofrecentFOI
requests
sixofthe12agenciesfailedtodetermineover50percentofaccessapplicationswithin
thetimeframerequiredbytheAct
mostoftheagenciesdonotunderstandhowtoapplytheexemptionsandthepublic
interesttestundertheAct
itiscommonpracticeacrossalloftheagenciestoprovidecopiesofFOIapplications,
determinations(draftorotherwise)anddocumentstotheirMinistertogetthegreen
lightpriortofinalisationofaccessrequests.WhiletheActpermitsaMinistertodirect
theiragencysdetermination,evidenceprovidedtotheauditstronglysuggeststhat
ministerialorpoliticalinfluenceisbroughttobearonagenciesFOIofficers,andthat
FOIofficersmayhavebeenpressuredtochangetheirdeterminationsinparticular
instances.Ifaministerialdecisionordirectionisinvolved,itshouldbeclearlysetoutin
theagenciesdeterminations
theagenciesChiefExecutivesarenotprovidingFOIorpro-informationdisclosure
leadership.Innineoutofthe12agencies,thereisnodirectiveatallfromtheChief
Executive,seniormanagementortheMinisterabouttheoperationorimplementationof
theAct
onlyoneagencystatedthatithaseverreleasedanexemptdocument,despitethe
discretiontodosoundertheAct.

Thereneedstobeanintegratedapproachtoinformationaccessinthisstate,whichincludes
FOIandprivacy;proactivereleaseofinformation(withFOIasalastresort);andnecessarily,
recordsmanagement.
RichardBingham
SAOMBUDSMAN

1
TheFreedomofInformationAct1991appliestobothstateandlocalgovernmentagencies.

3
SUMMARYOFPROPOSEDRECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDATION 1

TheobjectsandintentoftheFOIActshouldexpresslyestablishthat:
theActisbasedontheprinciplesofrepresentativedemocracy
theActistoenablecommunityscrutiny,commentandreviewofgovernmentsactivities
governmentandFOIagenciesaremerecustodiansofthedocumentsandinformation
whichtheyholdontrustforthebenefitofthepublic
documentsandinformationheldbygovernmentandFOIagenciesareapublicresource
thepublichasarightofaccesstogovernment-heldinformation,unlessdisclosurewould,
onbalance,becontrarytothepublicinterest.
RECOMMENDATION 2
TheActshouldexpresslyclarifythatanaccreditedFOIofficer(ortheprincipalofficer)
mustmaketheagencysinitialdetermination.
RECOMMENDATION 3
TocomplywiththedefinitionofaccreditedFOIofficerintheAct,theagenciesmustensurethat
theyhaveappropriatedesignationsbytheprincipalofficeroftheirFOIstaffwhohave
undergonetrainingapprovedbytheMinister.
RECOMMENDATION 4
AccreditedFOIofficersoftheagenciesshouldundertakerefreshertrainingona12monthly
basis,asamatterofpolicy.Thistrainingneedstobeappropriatelyfunded.
RECOMMENDATION 5
Principalofficersandseniormanagementintheagenciesshouldundertakeappropriately
tailoredFOIinductionandtraining.
Thisshouldbeamatterofpolicyacrosstheagencies.
RECOMMENDATION 6
AllagenciesshouldensurethattheirFOIpoliciesandproceduresareuptodate,andcomply
withtherequirementsoftheAct.
RECOMMENDATION 7
ThestatusoftheofficerrequiredtoconductaninternalreviewshouldbeclarifiedintheAct,as
wellastheprincipalofficersabilitytodelegatetheirpower.
RECOMMENDATION 8
TheActshouldrequireagenciestopromptlyacknowledgereceiptofanaccessapplicationand
anapplicationforinternalreview.Bothacknowledgementsshouldinformtheapplicantofthe
relevantreviewandappealrightsandtimelines,particularlyintheeventoftheagencyfailingto
makeanactivedeterminationwithinthestatutorytimeframes.
Inthemeantime.theagenciesshouldadoptthispracticeasamatterofpolicy.
RECOMMENDATION 9
TheActshouldallowapplicantsandagenciestonegotiateextensionsoftimetodealwithan
accessapplication,bothattheinitialdeterminationandinternalreviewlevel.However,
applicantsrightsofreviewandappealmustbepreserved.
RECOMMENDATION 10
TheActshouldprovidethat:
agenciesmustrefundthefeestoanapplicantiftheyexceedtheinitialdeterminationor
internalreviewtimelimitationsundertheAct
agencieshaveadiscretiontoimposeaceilingof40hoursforprocessingaccess
applicationsfollowingconsultationwiththeapplicant.
RECOMMENDATION 11
TheActshouldallowanexternalreviewauthoritytoremitdeemedorinadequatedeterminations
backtotheagencyforconsideration.
RECOMMENDATION 12
TheActshouldbeupdatedtorecognisetechnologicaladvancementsinelectronic
communicationsandstorage,andmodernrecordsmanagementpractices.
RECOMMENDATION 13
TheActshouldincludeaprovisionsimilartosection26oftheFreedomofInformationAct1992
(WA),thatanagencycandeterminetorefuseaccessonthebasisthatdocumentscannotbe
foundordonotexist.
Adeterminationofthisnatureshouldbesubjecttoreviewandappeal.
RECOMMENDATION 14

ChiefExecutivesoftheagenciesshouldissueawrittendirectivetoalloftheirstaffaboutthe
needforthemtorespondpromptlyandthoroughlytoFOIinternalsearchesfordocuments.
ThedirectiveshouldremindstaffoftheircomplianceobligationswiththeSouthAustralianPublic
SectorCodeofEthicsandtheStateRecordsAct1997.
RECOMMENDATION 15
Asamatterofpolicy,seniormanagementintheagenciesshouldberequiredtosignoffonthe
searchesundertakenbyagencystaffinresponsetoaninternalrequestfordocumentsfromFOI
officers.
RECOMMENDATION 16
IntheeventofbeingunabletolocaterequesteddocumentsundertheAct,agenciesneedtobe
abletodemonstratetoapplicantsintheirdeterminationthattheyhaveconductedreasonable
andsufficientsearches,showing:
how,whenandwherethesearcheswereconducted
therecordsmanagementsystemsanddatabasessearched,alongwitharelevant
descriptionofthecontentsofthesedatabases,andanysearchtermsused.
Asamatterofpolicy,theagenciesshouldhaveregardtotheStateRecordsofSouthAustralias
sufficiencyofsearchguideline.
RECOMMENDATION 17
Theagenciesshoulddevelopaninformationdisclosurepolicyhighlighting,inthecontextofthe
objectsandintentoftheFOIAct:
theirdiscretiontogiveaccessevenifarequesteddocumentisexempt
thefactthatmerelybecauseadocumentmightsatisfyanexemptiondoesnotmeanthat
accesstothedocumentmustberefused.
RECOMMENDATION 18
TheActshouldexpresslyprovidethatnothingpreventsanagencymakingadeterminationto
giveaccesstoanexemptdocument.
RECOMMENDATION 19
TheActshouldbeamendedto:
lessenthenumberofexemptionprovisions
providethatinformationmustbedisclosedunless,onbalance,disclosurewouldbe
countertothepublicinterest
expresslydirectagenciestoconsidertheobjectsanddiscretionsintheActbefore
applyingexemptionprovisions.
Theagenciesshouldinthemeantime,adoptapolicythat,inthecontextoftheobjectsandintent
oftheAct:
discretionsundertheActmustbeexercisedinawaythatfavoursdisclosureofrequested
documents
documentsrequestedundertheActshouldbereleased,unlessreleasewouldcausereal
harm.
RECOMMENDATION 20
TheActshouldprovidethatascheduleofdocumentsmustbedevelopedtoaccompanyanotice
ofdetermination.
Thescheduleshouldindicate,asaminimum:
anumberattributedtothedocument
thedateofthedocument
theauthorofthedocumentandrecipientofthedocument(whererelevant)
asubstantialdescriptionofthedocument
theexemptstatusorotherwiseofthedocument.
TheActshouldexpresslystatethatthescheduleisnotasubstituteforadetermination;andthat
whereaccesstodocumentsisrefused,section23(2)(f)mustbefollowed.
Inthemeantime,theagenciesshouldadoptthisasamatterofpolicy.
RECOMMENDATION 21
Thereshouldbeanintegratedapproachtoprivacyconcernsandaccesstogovernment-held
informationinthisstate.
Localgovernmentanduniversitiesshouldbeboundbythesameprivacyrulesasstate
government.
ThereneedstobecongruencybetweenthemeaningofprivateinformationintheFOIActand
theInformationPrivacyPrinciples.
TheActshouldexpresslyprovideforthepublicationofFOIapplicantsnamesandthenatureof
theirapplications,intermssimilartothepracticeofpublishingapplicantsnamesindisclosure
logsundertheRighttoInformationAct2009(Qld).
RECOMMENDATION 22
Agenciesshouldnotethelegalpositionthatmerelysatisfyingtheinitialcriteriainanexemption
clausewithapublicinteresttestundertheAct,isnotenoughtosatisfythetestthatdisclosure
would,onbalance,becontrarytothepublicinterest.
RECOMMENDATION 23
TheagenciesshoulddevelopapolicythatinassessingthepublicinteresttestintheirFOI
determinations,theyshouldrejecttheHowardfactorsandfocusontheactualcontentofthe
requesteddocuments.
TheActshouldbeamendedtoprovidethatthefollowingmattersareirrelevantwhenassessing
ifdisclosureofparticularinformationwould,onbalance,becontrarytothepublicinterest:
theauthorofthedocumentwasorisofhighseniority
thatdisclosurewouldconfusethepublicorthatthereisapossibilitythatthepublicmight
misinterprettheinformation
disclosureoftheinformationcouldreasonablybeexpectedtocauseembarrassmentto
thegovernmentortocauselossofconfidenceinthegovernment.
RECOMMENDATION 24
FollowingCommonwealthandinterstateFOIlegislation,theActshouldgiveexpressguidance
onwhatfactorsshouldandshouldnotbetakenintoaccountindeterminingwhetherdisclosure
ofdocumentswould,onbalance,becontrarytothepublicinterest.
RECOMMENDATION 25
Ifministerialnotingistooccur,theprocessshouldbeestablishedbyaformalwrittenpolicy,
commontoallstategovernmentagencies.
Thepolicyshould:
expresslyrecognisesection29(6)oftheAct
providethatiftheMinisterhasdirectedthattheagencysdeterminationbemadein
certainterms,theagencyshouldensurethatthisisclearlystatedinthedetermination
providethatiftheMinisterortheirstaffhashadanyinvolvementinthenotingofa
determination,thenthisfactandtheextentofthenotingshouldbestatedinthe
determination
providethattheministerialnotingprocessmustbemanagedinawaythatdoesnot
impactonstatutorytimeframes.
RECOMMENDATION 26
TheActshouldcreateoffencesofimproperlydirectingorinfluencingadecisionordetermination
madeundertheAct.
Auniformprotocolshouldbecreatedforuseacrossallagencieswhichcodifiesthe
requirementsforaccountableandtransparentcommunicationbetweenministerialofficesand
agencyFOIofficersinrelationtoaccessapplicationsundertheAct.
RECOMMENDATION 27
AgenciesshouldpublishtheirFOIinformationstatementontheirwebsite.
RECOMMENDATION 28
TheChiefExecutiveoftheagenciesshouldpromoteinformationdisclosureandissueawritten
directivetoallstaffabouttheneedforcompliancewiththeobjectsandoperationoftheFOIAct.
RECOMMENDATION 29
Alloftheagenciesshould,asamatterofpolicy,provideontheirwebsite:
thepostalandelectronicaddressestowhichaccessapplicationsmaybesent
thetelephonenumberofanFOIofficer
alinktoanaccessandinternalreviewapplicationform
linkstotheFOIActandStateRecordsofSouthAustralia
detailsofexternalreviewandappealrights,andalinktoOmbudsmanSA/orthePolice
Ombudsman(whicheveristherelevantreviewauthority)andtheDistrictCourt.
RECOMMENDATION 30
Informationdisclosureinitiativesshouldbeenshrinedinlegislation,toharnessthestrengthof
legislativeforceandtocapturelocalgovernmentcouncils,universitiesandotheragencieswhich
aresubjecttotheFOIAct.
However,thisshouldnotinterferewithproperaccessbeingprovidedoutsideoftheFOIActand
otherlegislation.Prescribinginformationthatshouldbereleasedinlegislationcancreatea
cultureofriskaversionwhenprovidingaccesstoinformationthroughadministrativeschemes.
RECOMMENDATION 31
PerformanceagreementsofChiefExecutivesandseniormanagementintheagenciesshould
containaprovisionrequiringaresponsibilitytoensureappropriatepracticesandperformancein
respectofaccesstogovernment-heldinformation,includingFOI.
RECOMMENDATION 32
AfterthepassingoftheamendmenttotheCivilLiabilityAct1936(SA),ChiefExecutivesinthe
agenciesshouldissueamemorandumtoallstaffexplainingtheconsequencesofthe
amendmentandtheprotectionsdescribedbytheAttorney-Generalinhissecondreading
speech.
ThememorandumshouldalsoemphasisethattheFOIprocessisalastresortoptiononly.
RECOMMENDATION 33

Thereshouldbeanindependentoversightbodywithinvestigation,auditandrecommendatory
powersto:
issueFOIguidelines
ensurepublicawarenessofFOIlegislation
giveFOIadviceandconductFOItrainingforagencies
addresscomplaintsabouttheFOIprocess
monitorandauditagenciesFOIperformance
conductmeritsreviews(withdeterminativepowers)
recommendadministrativeandlegislativereform
reporttotheparliamentontheoperationofthelegislation
Thisbodyshouldalsoberesponsiblefortheoversightofstateprivacypoliciesandlegislation.
10
PART1
THEAUDITPROCESS
Part1-Theauditprocess

11
Ombudsmanjurisdiction
1. Throughmyroleasanexternalreviewauthorityundersection39oftheFreedomof
InformationAct1991,itisapparentthatsomeagenciesdonotmeettheirobligations
undertheAct.Therearelikelytobemanyreasonsforthis,butthemainonesappearto
bealackofunderstandingoftheAct,resourcing,oracultureoffearorprejudgement
withinagencies.
2. Forthisreasonandaspartofmyroletopromoteadministrativeimprovementinthe
publicsector,Iconsidereditwasinthepublicinteresttoconductanauditundersection
14AoftheOmbudsmanAct1972ofthepracticesandprocessesofagenciesindealing
withFOI.
3. Iselectedthe12stategovernmentdepartments(theagencies)asthesubjectsofthe
audit.Ianticipatedthattheauditwouldhighlighttheseagencies:
understandingoftheAct
commitmenttoFOIprinciplesofopennessandaccountability
difficultiesinmeetingFOIobligationsandthereasonsforthesedifficulties.
4. Ialsoanticipatedthattheauditwouldassisttheseagenciesandagenciessubjecttothe
FOIActgenerally,toidentifywheretheymayneedtoimprovethedischargingoftheir
FOIresponsibilities.
Theauditgroup
5. Theauditgroupconsistedofthefollowingagencies:
Attorney-GeneralsDepartment(AGD)
DepartmentforCommunitiesandSocialInclusion(DCSI)
DepartmentforCorrectionalServices(DCS)
DepartmentforEducationandChildDevelopment(DECD)
DepartmentforHealthandAgeing(DHA)
DepartmentofEnvironment,WaterandNaturalResources(DEWNR)
DepartmentofFurtherEducation,Employment,ScienceandTechnology
(DFEEST)
DepartmentforManufacturing,Innovation,Trade,ResourcesandEnergy
(DMITRE)
DepartmentofPlanning,TransportandInfrastructure(DPTI)
DepartmentofPrimaryIndustriesandRegions(PIRSA)
DepartmentofthePremierandCabinet(DPC)
DepartmentofTreasuryandFinance(DTF).
Termsofreference
6. Thesubjectsrequiringresponseintheauditquestionnairecoveredeachagencys:
staffingforFOI
numberofFOIapplicationsandresponsetimes
policies,proceduresandtemplatesrelatingtoFOI
understandingobligationsandtrainingundertheFOIAct
FOIsearchingfordocuments
useofFOIexemptionsindeterminationsandunderstandingofthepublic
interest
ministerialnotingofFOIdeterminations

12
promotingtheprinciplesofFOIandinformationdisclosure.
Auditstages
7. Intheauditdocumentdated13June2013,Iproposedtotheagenciesthattheaudit
wouldbeconductedinfourstages:
Stage1
sendouttheauditquestionnairetoeachagency,allowingafourweekresponse
time(thiswasextendedtosixweeks)
considertheFreedomofInformationAnnualReportfor2012-2013andthe
previousfinancialyear
considereachagencysresponsesduringOmbudsmanexternalreviewsunder
theAct,inlightoftheirFOIobligations
Stage2
assesseachagencysresponsetotheaudit,andconsiderthedocumentation
theyprovidedtotheaudit
Stage3
takeevidenceonoath/affirmationundertheOmbudsmanActandRoyal
CommissionsAct1917fromofficersofvariousagencies,abouttheirexperiences
inadministeringtheAct
Stage4
providetheagenciesandStateRecordsofSouthAustralia(StateRecords)witha
provisionalwrittenreportonmytentativefindingsandrecommendations,for
theircomment
consideranycommentsorsuggestedamendmentsmadeinresponsetomy
provisionalreport
providetheagenciesandStateRecordswithmyfinalreport
tablemyfinalreportinthestateparliament,andpublishitonlineonthe
OmbudsmanSAandAustLIIwebsites.
8. Myofficealso:
metwithmembersoftheAttorneyGeneralsAccountableGovernmentProject
Team
requestedinformationfromStateRecords,andsoughtinformalviewsfromFOI
officersacrossgovernmentabouttheoperationoftheAct
researchedFOIliterature
communicatedwithFOIcommentatorsandCommonwealthandinterstate
agenciesandoversightbodiesabouttheirexperiences,andthestrengthsand
weaknessesoftheirrespectiveFOIlegislation.
9. IawaitedfinalisationofmyprovisionalreportuntilaftertheFreedomofInformation
AnnualReport2012-2013wastabledintheparliamentinDecember2013.
Comment
10. Thisreportfocusses,inthemain,ontheagenciesresponsestotheauditquestionnaire
(seeAppendix2).ThequestionnaireconcentratedontheaccessprovisionsoftheAct,
andnot,forexample,onthefeesandchargesoramendmenttopersonalrecords
provisions.

13
11. Foreaseofreferenceinthereport,Ihaveusedtheacronymscommonlyunderstood
acrossthestatesector,todescribetheagencies.Theseandtheotherabbreviations
usedinthereportaresetoutinAppendix1.
12. Importantly,neithertheaudit,northisreportisareviewoftheFOIAct.However,
becauseofthenatureandcontentofsomeoftheagenciesresponsestotheaudit,I
haveattimesproposedrecommendationstoamendtheAct.
Provisionalreportandresponses
13. IreleasedacopyofmyprovisionalreporttotheagenciesinDecember2013,seeking
comment.Iappreciatedthattheagenciesmayhavehaddifficultyinrespondingduring
thecaretakerprovisions,andaccordinglywithheldpublicationofthisreportuntilafter
thestategovernmentelectionson15March2014.Ireceivedthelastresponsefrom
DPCon23April2014.
14. Fiveagencies(DFEEST,DECD,PIRSA,DTFandAGD)notedmyproposed
recommendationsandadvisedthattheywouldnotbemakinganyfurthersubmissions.
15. Twoagencies(DCSandDCSI)didnotrespondtomyprovisionalreport.
16. Fiveagencies(DHA,DMITRE,DEWNR,DPCandDPTI)andStateRecordsprovided
moredetailedsubmissionsinresponsetomyprovisionalreport.Ihaveincludedthe
moresalientsubmissionsinthisreport.
17. Myrecommendationssubstantiallymirrorthoseproposedinmyprovisionalreport.
Publicationofreport
18. Undersection26(2)oftheOmbudsmanAct1972,Iconsideritisinthepublicinterestto
releasethereporttotheparliamentandthepublic:
theparliamentandthepublicareentitledtoknowwhetherstategovernment
agencies
haveasoundunderstandingoftheFOIAct
correctlyfollowtheprovisionsoftheActinrespondingtoapplications
adheretotheActsobjectsanditsspiritofopennessandaccountability
thereportmayalsoprovidearesourceforagenciesindevelopingtheir
understandingoftheoperationoftheFOIAct.
19. IintendtoforwardthereporttothePresidentoftheLegislativeCouncilandtothe
SpeakeroftheHouseofAssembly,inadditiontoageneralreleaseontheOmbudsman
SAandAustLIIwebsites.

14
PART2
THEFOIACTANDDEVELOPMENTS
Part2-TheFOIActanddevelopments

15
OverviewofdevelopmentsoftheFOIAct
20. TheFOIActhasbeeninoperationinSouthAustraliafor20years.Itisakeysafeguard
ofrepresentativedemocracyandaccountablegovernmentinthisstate.
21. On11December1990,theHonGregCrafterMPintroducedtheFreedomof
InformationBill(No.2)intotheHouseofAssembly.
2
Thiswasjustunderadecadeafter
theCommonwealthandVictoriaenactedtheirFOIlegislation,butaroundasimilartime
asotherAustralianstatesandterritories.
22. AyearlaterinhisexplanatoryspeechintheLegislativeCouncilontheBill,thethen
Attorney-General,theHonChrisSumnerMLCtalkedofthethreemajorpremiseson
whichtheBillwasbased,namely:
(1) TheindividualhasarighttoknowwhatinformationiscontainedinGovernment
recordsabouthimorherself;
(2) AGovernmentthatisopentopublicscrutinyismoreaccountabletothepeoplewho
electit;
(3) WherepeopleareinformedaboutGovernmentpolicies,theyaremorelikelyto
becomeinvolvedinpolicymakingandinGovernmentitself.
3
23. TheActcommencedoperationon1January1992.Sincethattimetherehavebeen
sporadicamendmentstotheAct,andadhocandratherfragmentedpolicy
development.Thesehavebeeninresponsetoconcernsraisedwithinthepublicsector
andothersectors(suchasthemediaandMembersofParliament)andgrowing
demandswithinthecommunityforincreasedgovernmentopennessandaccountability.
LegislativeReviewCommittee2000
24. ThefirstassessmentofthefunctioningoftheActwascarriedoutbytheLegislative
ReviewCommitteeoftheSAparliament.InFebruary1997,theLegislativeCouncil
passedaresolutionrequestingthecommitteetoinquireintoandreportonthe
operationoftheAct.Thecommitteecompleteditsreportin2000.
25. Inrelationtothefirstpremiseabove,thecommitteeconsideredthattheActhadbeen
successfultosomedegree.However,inrelationtotheothertwopremises,the
committeeconsideredthat:
[T]heoverwhelmingimpactoftheevidenceandexaminationbytheCommitteeofall
Australianandmanyinternationalmodelsoftheoperationoffreedomofinformation
legislationrevealsthattheActisnotworkingandstandsinneedofacompleteoverhaul.
4
26. ThecommitteedescribedtheActas:
acomplexschemeofprovisionssettingoutarangeofexemptagencies,exempt
documentsandinvolvedprocedureswhichoftenmaketheimplementationofthebasic
objectivesoftheActcumbersome,complexandinsomecases,theveryantithesisofthe
objectsoftheAct.Indeedasonewitnessputit,theActshouldberenamedtheFreedom
fromInformationActhavingregardtotheirexperiences.
5

2
SouthAustralia,ParliamentaryDebates,HouseofAssembly,11December1990,2591(HonGregCrafterMP).
3
SouthAustralia,ParliamentaryDebates,LegislativeCouncil,14February1991,2391(HonChrisSumnerMLC).
4
LegislativeReviewCommittee,ParliamentofSouthAustralia,ReportoftheLegislativeReviewCommitteeconcerningthe
FreedomofInformationAct1991(2000)3.
5

16
27. ThecommitteenotedseveraldeficienciesintheAct,butidentifiedthreebasic
concerns:
theuncertaintyoftheAct-theActissubjecttoarangeofcomplexanduncertain
provisions,whichhavethecapacitytodeterallbutthemostdeterminedandwell-
resourcedapplicants
theculturewithinthepublicsector-theachievementoftheobjectsoftheActis
largelydependentuponthosewithinthepublicsectorwhoareresponsibleforits
administration.TheCommitteeheardevidencefromanumberofwitnessesthat
thereisapublicservicecultureofantipathyandevenantagonismtotheconcept
ofopengovernment.Theroleoffreedomofinformationresponsibilitiesis
frequentlygiventhelowestprioritybothintermsofappointmentandtraining.
theproceduresassociatedwithapplications,includingtheinternalandexternal
reviewprocess.
6
28. Inrelationtothesethreeconcernsthecommitteerecommendedinteraliathat:
thecurrentlistofexemptionsbesubjecttoasinglesimpletesti.e.isitcontraryto
thepublicinteresttoreleasetherequestedinformation?
theimplementationofacentrallycoordinatedprogramofeducation,trainingand
accreditation,andthatthetrainingprogrambeapprovedbytheOmbudsmanand
(former)PoliceComplaintsAuthority
7
removaloftheinternalreviewprocessandlimitingtherightofappealtothe
courtstoquestionsoflawonly.
29. ThecommitteesBillwasintroducedbytheHonIanGilfillanMLCwho,inhisspeech
referredtoacommentatorsdescriptionoftheActasasetofinstructionsfor
withholdingallbutthemostinnocuousinformation.
8
TheBillwasnotsupportedbythe
government.
FreedomofInformation(Miscellaneous)AmendmentAct2001
30. TheFreedomofInformation(Miscellaneous)AmendmentAct2001wassubsequently
passed.ItdidnotoverhaultheAct,butitdidaddresssomeofthecommittees
concerns.Themoresignificantamendmentsincluded:
formalisingtheappointmentofaccreditedFOIofficerswho:
- hadcompletedtrainingapprovedbytheMinister
- hadbeendesignatedtotherolebytheagencysprincipalofficer
- heldaseniorpositionintheagency
9
theMinisterdevelopingtrainingprogramsinconsultationwiththeOmbudsman
andthe(former)PoliceComplaintsAuthoritytoassistagenciesincomplyingwith
theAct
decreasingthetimeinwhichanagencycoulddealwithanapplicationandin
whichpartiescouldseekaninternalorexternalreviewandappeal
bringinglocalgovernmentcouncilsanduniversitiesundertheAct.
PublicationofaCitizensCharter-2002
31. InOctober2002,thePremierandtheMinisterforAdministrativeServicesreleasedthe
CitizensRightstoInformationCharter,whichcommittedtheSAgovernmenttomaking
informationinGovernmentdocumentsandrecordsreadilyaccessibletothecitizensof
SouthAustralia.

6
7
ThenameofthePoliceComplaintsAuthoritywasrecentlychangedtoPoliceOmbudsmanundertheIndependent
CommissionerAgainstCorruptionAct2012,Schedule3.
8
SouthAustralia,ParliamentaryDebates,LegislativeCouncil,11October2000,133(theHonIanGilfillanMLC).
9
FreedomofInformation(Miscellaneous)AmendmentAct2001(no61of2001),section4(a).

17
FreedomofInformation(Miscellaneous)AmendmentAct2004
32. FollowingalaterreviewoftheActbytheformerDepartmentofAdministrativeand
InformationServices,theFreedomofInformation(Miscellaneous)AmendmentAct
2004cameintooperationon1January2005.Themoresignificantamendments
included:
abolishingministerialandagencycertificates
allowingforreleaseofCabinetdocuments,withapproval
changestofeesandchargesandtheexternalreviewprocess
amendmenttothebusinessaffairsexemptiontoallowaccesstocontract
documentsenteredintobyanagency,unlessthecontractcontaineda
confidentialityclause.
Disclosureofgovernmentcontracts-2005
33. Attheendof2005,thestategovernmentintroducedacontractdisclosurepolicythat
appliedtoallpublicauthoritiessubjecttothePublicFinanceandAuditAct1987,forthe
publicdisclosureofcertaincontractsinvolvinggovernmentexpenditureandthesaleof
governmentassets,andforthemanagementofcontractinformation.
10
DisclosureofCabinetdocuments10yearsorolder
34. ACabinetdocumentdisclosurepolicywaslaterreleasedbythestategovernment,
whichprovidesforselectedCabinetdocumentstobedisclosedontheDPCwebsite
andconsideredforreleasethroughtheFOIActprocess,if10yearshavepassedsince
theendofthecalendaryearinwhichtheycameintoexistence.
11
StateRecordsProactiveDisclosureStrategyinitiatives-2012-13
35. Inthereportingyear2011-12,StateRecordsdevelopedthegovernmentspolicyforthe
publicationofselectedCabinetdocuments10yearsorolderonlineandfacilitatedits
implementation.
12
36. Anotherinitiativein2013wasStateRecordsassessmentofstategovernment
departmentsInformationStatementsundertheFOIAct.Asummaryoftheresultswere
publishedinthe2012-13FOIAnnualReportwhichwaspublishedinDecember2013.
37. Further,CabinetapprovedapolicyinApril2013torequirestategovernment
departmentsandSAPolicetopubliclydiscloseinformationthatisregularlyrequested
andreleasedundertheFOIAct.Theinformationistobepublishedonagency
websites,andincludesdetailsaboutthegovernmentsexpenditureoncreditcards,
mobilephones,capitalworksprojects,consultants,andMinistersoverseastravel.It
alsoincludesagencygiftregistersandprocurementpoliciesandprocedures.
13
Apolicy
toassistwiththisimplementationwasapprovedbyCabinetinAugust2013;andState
Recordshastheresponsibilityforimplementingthispolicy.
14

10
PC027-December2005.
11
PC031-revisedJanuary2013.
12
FOIAnnualReport2012-13,p17.
13
PC035-September2013.
14

18
Attorney-GeneralsAccountableGovernmentProject-2013
38. InApril2013,CabinetapprovedtheestablishmentofanAccountableGovernment
Project.ThisprojectisbeingledbytheAttorney-GeneralsDepartment.Oneaspectof
theprojectidentifiedintheprojectbriefinJuly2013,istoreviewthecurrentoperation
oftheFOIActandotherlegislationaffectingthereleaseofinformation,andtomake
recommendationsaboutpotentialreforms.Theprojectwillconsiderthereleaseof
government-heldinformationthroughFOIapplications,anddevelopshortandlonger
termstrategiestoachievegreatergovernmentopennessandaccountability.
15

DeclarationofOpenData-2013
39. AspartoftheAccountableGovernmentProject,inSeptember2013,thePremier
releasedanopendatadeclarationrequiringgovernmentagenciestoensurethattheir
dataispubliclyaccessible.
16

RoleofStateRecords
40. Inaccordancewithsection7(j)oftheStateRecordsAct1997,StateRecordssupports
theAttorney-GeneralintheadministrationoftheFOIAct(andtheInformationPrivacy
Principles).
41. StateRecordsfunctioninFOI(andprivacy)isto:
provideadviceandassistancetotheMinister,agenciesandthepublic
provideexecutivesupporttothePrivacyCommitteeofSouthAustralia
developandpromulgatepoliciesandguidelines
administeranacross-governmentfreedomofinformationmanagementsystem
developanddelivertrainingforaccreditedFOIofficers.
17

15
ProjectBriefAccountableGovernmentapprovedbytheChiefExecutiveoftheAttorney-GeneralsDepartment,dated4July
2013.
16
http://www.premier.sa.gov.au/images/news_releases/13_08Aug/data.pdf(accessedat30November2013).The
Commonwealth,Queensland,NSWandVictoriahavealsoestablisheddataportals,similartoSouthAustraliasportalat
http://data.sa.gov.au.
17

19
PART3
OBJECTSOFTHEFOIACT
Part3-ObjectsoftheFOIAct

20
FulfillingtheobjectsoftheAct
42. TheFOIActislegislativerecognitionoftheneedfordemocracytobesupportedbya
governmentguaranteethatitwillholdallinformationforthepublicinterest:
Itisimplicitthatcitizensinarepresentativedemocracyhavearighttoparticipateinand
influencetheprocessesofgovernmentdecision-makingandpolicyformulationonany
issueofconcerntothem(whetherornottheychoosetoexercisetheright).The
importanceofFOIlegislationisthatitprovidesthemeansforapersontohaveaccessto
theknowledgeandinformationthatwillassistamoremeaningfulandeffectiveexerciseof
thatright.
18
43. TheobjectsoftheActaresetoutinsection3,topromoteopennessingovernmentand
accountabilityofMinistersoftheCrownandothergovernmentagenciesandtherebyto
enhancerespectforthelawandfurtherthegoodgovernmentoftheState;andto
facilitatemoreeffectiveparticipationbymembersofthepublicintheprocesses
involvedinthemakingandadministrationoflawsandpolicies.
44. Itisfurtherstatedinsection3(2)thatthemeansbywhichtheseobjectsareintendedto
beachievedare:
(a) ensuringthatinformationconcerningtheoperationsofgovernment(including,in
particular,informationconcerningtherulesandpracticesfollowedbygovernment
initsdealingswithmembersofthepublic)isreadilyavailabletomembersofthe
publicandtoMembersofParliament;and
(b) conferringoneachmemberofthepublicandonMembersofParliamentalegally
enforceablerighttobegivenaccesstodocumentsheldbygovernment,subject
onlytosuchrestrictionsasareconsistentwiththepublicinterest(including
maintenanceoftheeffectiveconductofpublicaffairsthroughthefreeandfrank
expressionofopinions)andthepreservationofpersonalprivacy;...
45. Section3A(1)underPrinciplesofadministrationsaysthattheparliamenthas
intended:
(a) thatthisActshouldbeinterpretedandappliedsoastofurthertheobjectsofthis
Act;and
(b) thatapersonorbodyexercisinganadministrativediscretionconferredbythisAct
exercisethediscretion,asfaraspossible,inawaythatfavoursthedisclosureof
informationofakindthatcanbedisclosedwithoutinfringingtherighttoprivacyof
individuals.
46. AlthoughtheDistrictCourtinSouthAustraliaconsidersthattheobjectsandintentof
theActdonotcreatealegalpresumptioninfavourofdisclosure,ithasnonetheless
saidthattheobjectsprovisionsuggestssomebiasinfavourofgivingthepublicrights
ofaccesstoinformationandrecordsheldbytheGovernment.
19
47. TheDistrictCourthasalsomadeitclearthatinrecognitionoftheobjectsoftheActand
undertheFOIschemegenerally,theprincipalroleofagovernmentdepartment(or
agency)isasthecustodianofdocuments.
20
48. InDepartmentofPlanningandLocalGovernmentvChapman,theDistrictCourtsaid
thatinthisroleofcustodian:

18
ReEcclestonandDepartmentofFamilyservicesandAboriginalandIslanderaffairs(1993)1QAR60,71.
19
IpexInformationTechnologyGroupPtyLtdvDepartmentofInformationandTechnologyServicesSA(1997)192LSJS54,
60-62;MoorevTheRegistraroftheMedicalBoard(2001)215LSJS133,147,inMinisterforEducationandChild
DevelopmentvChapman[2013]SADC130,unreported,(27September2013),[14].
20
DepartmentofPlanningandLocalGovernmentvChapman[2012]SADC120(27September2012),[45].

21
theDepartmentissubjecttotherightsofaccessconferredbytheActandchargedwith
thefunctionofdeciding,uponreceiptofanapplication,whetheranexemptionapplies.
theroleoftheDepartmentundertheActhasnoelementofentitlementtotheexclusive
retentionofanydocumentorofinterestinthenon-disclosureofanydocument.An
individualagencysuchastheDepartmentisnotcharged,undertheAct,withthe
representationofthepub[l]icinterestortheinterestofthegovernmentoftheday.
21
49. Asdemonstratedlater,theevidencepresentedtotheauditcastsdoubtonthe
agenciesunderstandingandobservanceoftheobjectsandintentoftheAct.
50. Inmyview,itwouldassistagenciesiftherewasexpresswordingintheobjectsand
intentsectionsoftheActto:
promoterepresentativedemocracy
increasecommunityscrutiny,commentandreviewofgovernmentsactivities
increasepublicparticipationingovernmentprocesses,withaviewtopromoting
betterinformeddecisionmaking
recognisethatgovernmentandagenciesaremerecustodiansofthedocuments
andinformationwhichtheyhold,andthatdocumentsandinformationare
managedforpublicpurposesandareapublicresource
providearightofaccesstoinformationinthegovernmentspossessionorunder
thegovernmentscontrolunless,onbalance,itiscontrarytothepublicinterestto
providetheinformation.
22
51. ThepreambletotheQueenslandRighttoInformationAct2009(Qld)firmly
communicatesthatparliamentsreasonsinrelationtothatlegislation:
Parliament'sreasonsforenactingthisActare
1 Parliamentrecognisesthatinafreeanddemocraticsociety
(a) thereshouldbeopendiscussionofpublicaffairs;and
(b) informationinthegovernment'spossessionorunderthegovernment's
controlisapublicresource;and
(c) thecommunityshouldbekeptinformedofgovernment'soperations,
including,inparticular,therulesandpracticefollowedbygovernmentinits
dealingswithmembersofthecommunity;and
(d) opennessingovernmentenhancestheaccountabilityofgovernment;and
(e) opennessingovernmentincreasestheparticipationofmembersofthe
communityindemocraticprocessesleadingtobetterinformeddecision-
making;and
(f) righttoinformationlegislationcontributestoahealthierrepresentative,
democraticgovernmentandenhancesitspractice;and
(g) righttoinformationlegislationimprovespublicadministrationandthequality
ofgovernmentdecision-making;and
(h) righttoinformationlegislationisonly1ofanumberofmeasuresthatshould
beadoptedbygovernmenttoincreasetheflowofinformationinthe
government'spossessionorunderthegovernment'scontroltothecommunity.
2 TheGovernmentisproposinganewapproachtoaccesstoinformation.
Governmentinformationwillbereleasedadministrativelyasamatterofcourse,
unlessthereisagoodreasonnotto,withapplicationsunderthisActbeing
necessaryonlyasalastresort.

21
DepartmentofPlanningandLocalGovernmentvChapman[2012]SADC120(27September2012),[45].
22
SeeFreedomofInformationAct1982(Cth)andRighttoInformationAct2009(Qld).

22
3 ItisParliament'sintentiontoemphasiseandpromotetherighttogovernment
information.ItisalsoParliament'sintentiontoprovidearightofaccessto
informationinthegovernment'spossessionorunderthegovernment'scontrol
unless,onbalance,itiscontrarytothepublicinteresttoprovidetheinformation.
ThisActreflectsParliament'sopinionaboutmakinginformationavailableandthe
publicinterest.

RECOMMENDATION 1

TheobjectsandintentoftheFOIActshouldexpresslyestablishthat:
theActisbasedontheprinciplesofrepresentativedemocracy
theActistoenablecommunityscrutiny,commentandreviewofgovernmentsactivities
governmentandFOIagenciesaremerecustodiansofthedocumentsandinformation
whichtheyholdontrustforthebenefitofthepublic
documentsandinformationheldbygovernmentandFOIagenciesareapublicresource
thepublichasarightofaccesstogovernment-heldinformation,unlessdisclosurewould,
onbalance,becontrarytothepublicinterest.

23
PART4
FOISTAFFING,ACCREDITATION&POLICIES
Part4-FOIstaffing,accreditation&policies

24
FOIstaffingintheagencies
52. TounderstandtheabilityofeachoftheagenciestodealwithFOI,theauditsoughtthe
followingfigures:
numberofstaffemployedbytheagency
numberofFOIFTEstaff
classificationlevelsofeachFOIstaffmember(includingaccreditedFOIofficers
andtheFOIprincipalofficer)
thepercentageofeachFOIstaffmemberstimespentonFOI.
53. ThefollowingshowsthenumberofFTEstaffemployedbyeachagencyasat30June
2013.
23
Agency NoofFTEsasat30June2013
DFEEST 612.06
DECD 22,929.1
24
DCS 1643.5
PIRSA 867.4
DTF 684.79
DCSI 4622.6
DHA 2018.4
DMITRE 468.3
25
AGD 1330.2
DEWNR 1670.1
DPC 2329.1
DPTI 3446.9
26
54. InrelationtothestaffallocatedtoworkonFOI,theagenciesprovidedvariablefigures
forthenumberofFOIFTEforbothaccreditedFOIofficersandotherdedicatedFOI
staff.StateRecordsprovidedtheauditwithstatisticscollectedforits2012-13Annual
Report.Inparticular,StateRecordsinformedtheauditofthenumberandclassification
ofFOIFTEineachagency.
55. ThetablebelowshowsthenumberofFOIFTEineachagencybyclassification(both
accreditedFOIofficersandotherFOIstaff).
27

23
Figurestakenfromtheagencies2012-13annualreports;andforthosefiguresnotyetavailable,byconfirmationwiththe
agency.
24
ConfirmedwithOmbudsmanSAbyA/Manager,BusinessServices,OfficeofChiefExecutive,DECDon6December2013.
25
ConfirmedwithOmbudsmanSAbyDirector,StrategyandPerformance,StrategyandPerformance,StrategyPeopleand
Culture,DMITREon3December2013.
26
ConfirmedwithOmbudsmanSAbySeniorProjectofficer,ExecutiveSupport,CorporateServicesDivision,DPTIon3
December2013.
27
DataprovidedbyStateRecordsofSouthAustralia,emailtoOmbudsmanSAdated2December2013,andresponseof
DMITREtoOmbudsmanprovisionalreportdated13February2014.

25
NumberofFOIFTEsineachagencybyclassification
ASO1 ASO2 ASO3 ASO4 ASO5 ASO6 ASO7 ASO8 MAS1 MAS2 MAS3 EXEC TOTAL
DFEEST 0.05 0.05 0 0.3 0.3 0.95 0 0.05 0 0 0.15 0.05 1.9
DECD 0 2 2 3 1 0.05 1 0 0 0 0.15 0.3 9.5
DCS 0 1.1 0 0.75 0 1.05 0 0 0 0 0 0.05 2.95
PIRSA 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0.05 0 0.05 1.1
DTF 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0.25 0.15 4.4
DCSI 0 0.1 0 1.35 2.25 0.75 0.1 0 0 0 0 0.15 4.7
DHA 0 0.15 0.3 0.2 0.55 2.25 0.5 0.5 0 0 0.3 0.6 5.35
DMITRE 0 0 0.01 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0.31 2.32
AGD 0 0 0.05 0 1 0 0 0 0 0.25 0 0 1.3
DEWNR 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0.15 0 2.15
DPC 0 0 1.95 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0.05 5
DPTI 0 0.2 2.1 0.7 1.25 1 1.05 1.05 0 0.05 0.5 1.2 9.1
TOTAL 0.05 4.6 6.41 9.3 10.35 10.05 2.65 1.6 0 0.35 1.5 2.91 49.77
AccreditationofFOIofficers-section4
56. LegislativeamendmentsrequiringFOIofficerseniorityandaccreditationwere
introducedafterthereportoftheLegislativeReviewCommitteein2000,andthe
FreedomofInformation(Miscellaneous)AmendmentAct2001.
57. Section4oftheActdefinesanaccreditedFOIofficeras:
(a) theprincipalofficeroftheagency;or
(b) anofficeroftheagencywho
(i) hascompletedtrainingofatypeapprovedbytheMinisterforanaccredited
FOIofficer;and
(ii) hasbeendesignatedbytheprincipalofficeroftheagencyasanaccredited
FOIofficeroftheagency;and
(iii)
(A) inrelationtoanadministrativeunitofthePublicServiceisan
executiveemployeeoranemployeewhousuallyreportstoan
executiveemployee;or
(B) inrelationtoSouthAustraliaPoliceisanofficerinSouthAustralia
Police;or
(C) inrelationtoanyotheragencyisemployedinapositionthatusually
reportstotheprincipalofficeroftheagencyortothedeputyor
immediatedelegateoftheprincipalofficer;
58. Section4continuestodefineprincipalofficeras:
(a) iftheagencyconsistsofasingleperson(includingacorporationsolebutnotany
otherbodycorporate)thatperson;
(b) iftheagencyconsistsofanunincorporatedboardorcommitteethepresiding
officer;
(c) inanyothercasethechiefexecutiveofficeroftheagencyorapersondesignated
bytheregulationsasprincipalofficeroftheagency;

26
59. ThefollowingtableshowsthenumberofaccreditedFOIofficersineachagencyand
theirclassification.
28
NumberofaccreditedFOIofficersineachagencybyclassification
ASO1 ASO2 ASO3 ASO4 ASO5 ASO6 ASO7 ASO8 MAS1 MAS2 MAS3 EXEC TOTAL
DFEEST 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3
DECD 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 2 7
DCS 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
PIRSA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2
DTF 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 3 5
DCSI 0 1 0 1 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 3 11
DHA 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 2 5
DMITRE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5
AGD 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2
DEWNR 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2
DPC 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2
DPTI 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 4
TOTAL 0 2 0 1 6 6 5 1 0 2 8 18 50
60. TheActprovidesthatanapplicationistobedealtwithonbehalfofanagencybyan
accreditedFOIofficer(section14(1)).Curiously,theActdoesnotexpresslyprovide
thatanaccreditedFOIofficermustmaketheagencysdeterminationundertheAct.
TheActsimplystatesthatthepersonmakingthedeterminationneedstorecordtheir
nameanddesignation(section23(2)(b)(i)).
61. WhileitisusuallythepracticeofagenciesfortheaccreditedFOIofficerortheprincipal
officertosignthedetermination,inmyview,itwouldbehelpfulfortheActtoexpresslysay
so.
RECOMMENDATION 2
TheActshouldexpresslyclarifythatanaccreditedFOIofficer(ortheprincipalofficer)
mustmaketheagencysinitialdetermination.
DesignationofFOIofficers-section4
62. Theauditquestionnairerequestedcopiesofdocumentsshowingthedesignationbythe
principalofficerofeachagencyFOIofficerwhohadundergonetrainingapprovedby
theMinister.
29
DCSfailedtoprovideitsdesignations,andDCSIandDPCcouldnot
locatealloftheirdesignations.
RECOMMENDATION 3
TocomplywiththedefinitionofaccreditedFOIofficerintheAct,theagenciesmustensurethat
theyhaveappropriatedesignationsbytheprincipalofficeroftheirFOIstaffwhohave
undergonetrainingapprovedbytheMinister.

28
FiguresprovidedbyStateRecordsofSouthAustralia.EmailtoOmbudsmanSAdated2December2013.Iunderstandthat
thesefiguresdonotincludeagenciesprincipalofficers.Ihavereliedonthesefigures,assomeoftheagenciesresponses
totheauditwereunclear.
29
FreedomofInformationAct1991,section4(1)(b)(ii).

27
FOItraining-section4
63. Eachagencyprovideddetailstotheauditofthesection4trainingundertakenbyitsFOI
staffandprincipalofficer.
64. Thesedetailsshowthat73percentcompletedtheirtraininginthelastfiveyears.Inmy
view,accreditedFOIofficersshouldupdatetheirtrainingonanannualbasis.
65. Inresponsetomyprovisionalreport,StateRecordscommentedthatithasnever
receivedadditionalFTEresourcingtosupportFOItrainingadministration,development
anddelivery.
30
RECOMMENDATION 4
AccreditedFOIofficersoftheagenciesshouldundertakerefreshertrainingona12monthly
basis,asamatterofpolicy.Thistrainingneedstobeappropriatelyfunded.
66. OnlyoneagencysaidthatthatitsprincipalofficerhadcompletedFOItraining,andthis
wasbefore2005.
67. NoneoftheagenciesrequireseniormanagerstocompleteFOItraining.Themajorityof
theagenciesjustifiedthisbystatingthatthereisacentralFOIunitorFOIofficerwho
handlesFOIapplications.
68. Iconsiderthatprincipalofficersandseniormanagementinagenciesshouldberequired
toparticipateinFOItraining.ThiswouldhelptodevelopFOIunderstandingand
compliancefromthetopdown.Itiscuriousthatprincipalofficersarenotrequiredto
undertaketraining,asitistheywhoareusuallysignatoriestoaninternalreview
determination.Thattheyarenot,isperhapsreflectiveofageneralviewindepartments
thatFOIisnotagenciescorebusiness.
69. Witnessesintheaudittendedtoagree;andonesaid:
Certainlythere'sbeenCEswherethey
probably,inmyview,reallyshouldhaveundertakenthetraining.
It'stobeassumedtheprincipalofficerdoesn't
bringyouthenaturalknowledgeandskillsyouneedto
actuallybeabletounderstandwhat'sbeenputinfrontofyouinthisspace,becauseitis
quitecomplex.
Mystrongviewisthatthereneedstobeatrainingcomponent,andit'sobviouslydifficult
fortime,thatneedstobeprovidedtoaCEwhentheycomeintothatrolebecauseIhave
comeacrossgoodandbad.
31
RECOMMENDATION 5
Principalofficersandseniormanagementintheagenciesshouldundertakeappropriately
tailoredFOIinductionandtraining.
Thisshouldbeamatterofpolicyacrosstheagencies.

30
ResponsefromStateRecordstoOmbudsmandated12February2014.
31
Transcriptofevidence,p16.

28
FOIpoliciesandprocedures
70. StateRecordshasproducedinformationsheetsandthefollowingFOIproceduresand
guidelines:
ProcessingFOIapplications
Across-governmentFOIapplications
FOIandthechargingoffees
ConsultationandtheFOIAct
FOIandthepublicinteresttest
FreedomofInformationandsufficiencyofsearch
Cabinetdocumentsexemptionguideline
Administrativereleaseofinformation.
32
71. ItisappropriateforagenciestoseektorelyonStateRecordsguidelines.Onthe
questionofwhethertheagencieshavetheirowncurrentdocumentedpoliciesregarding
FOI,fiveofthe12donot.Further,allagenciesbutonehavetheirowndocumentedFOI
procedures.
72. Iobservethatthenatureandcontentsofeachagencyspoliciesandproceduresare
varied.SomearenotinaccordancewiththeActanddonotprovideuptodate
information.
73. Someoftheagenciespolicieslackcurrency.One,forexample,listsanoutdated
applicationfeeandprincipalofficer.
33
74. Somesuggestthatawaiveroffeescanonlybegivenwhereapersonliabletopaya
feeorchargeundertheActsatisfiestheagency:
thatheorsheisaconcessioncardholder;or
thatpaymentofthefeeorchargewouldcausefinancialhardshiptotheperson.
34
75. Thisiswrongandfailstotakeintoaccountsection53(2a)whichprovidesthatan
agencymay,asitthinksfit,waive,reduceorremitafeeorchargeincircumstances
otherthanthoseprovidedforundertheregulations(asabove).InotethatState
RecordsProcessingFOIApplicationsGuidelinesonitswebsiteprovidesthecorrect
details.
76. WhileIrecognisethatthedifferentagenciesmayhavedifferentconsiderationswhich
mayrequireauniqueFOIpolicyorprocedure,thereshouldbebasicuniformityacross
allagencies.
RECOMMENDATION 6
AllagenciesshouldensurethattheirFOIpoliciesandproceduresareuptodate,andcomply
withtherequirementsoftheAct.

32
http://www.archives.sa.gov.au/foi/foiadmin/guidelines.html#Processing_FOI_applications_guideline(asat4December
2013).
33
DECD-FamiliesSAFreedomofInformationManualp5andp15.
34
DECD-FamiliesSAFreedomofInformationManual,p6;DCSI-RespondingforFOIrequests,DomiciliaryCare-Freedom
ofInformationProcedurep2;DCSI-FreedomofInformation(FOI)-AccesstoRecordsGuidelinesJune2013,point3.2.4.

29
PART5
FOIAPPLICATIONNUMBERS&RESPONSETIMES
Part5-FOIapplicationnumbers&responsetimes

30
FOIapplicationnumbers
77. TounderstandtheworkloadofFOIstaff,theauditcollectedapplicationnumbersacross
theagencies.ThegraphbelowshowsthenumberofnewFOIapplicationsreceivedby
eachoftheagenciesinthe2012-13financialyear.
* Thisfigure(72)includesfiveapplicationsthatweremadetoTAFESA.
78. Thefollowinggraphcomparesthenumberofnewapplicationsreceivedinthe2012-13
financialyearperFOIFTEineachagency.
79. ThegraphbelowshowsthenumberofFOIapplicationscarriedoverfromtheprevious
financialyear(2011-12).
72
542
336
41
354
256
96 98 95
81
853
361
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
DFEEST DECD DCS PIRSA DTF DCSI DHA DMITRE AGD DEWNR DPC DPTI
FOIapplicationsreceivedbyeachagencyinthe2012-13financialyear
37.9
57.1
113.9
37.3
80.5
54.5
17.9
42.2
100.8
37.7
170.6
39.7
DFEEST DECD DCS PIRSA DTF DCSI DHA DMITRE AGD DEWNR DPC DPTI
NumberofnewapplicationsperFOIFTEfor2012-13financialyear
*

31

* Thisfigure(415)includesapplicationsthatweremadetotheOfficeofthePremier,asDPCsubmittedthatthedatacould
notbeseparated.
ResponsetimestoFOIapplications
80. Section3A(2)oftheActrequiresthatagenciesaretogiveeffecttotheActinawaythat
assistsmembersofthepublicandMembersoftheParliamenttoexerciserightsgiven
bytheActandthatensuresthatapplicationsunderthisActaredealtwithpromptlyand
efficiently.
81. Section14(2)providesthatanaccessapplicationmustbedealtwith(anddetermined)
assoonaspracticable(and,inanycase,within30days)afteritisreceived.
82. Section14Aallowstheprincipalofficertoextendthisperiodforareasonabletimein
certaincircumstances(e.g.largeapplicationsorapplicationswhichnecessitatelarge
searches,orapplicationswhichrequiresignificantconsultation).Thisextensionis
consideredtobeadeterminationundertheAct.
83. Whereanagencyfailstomakeadeterminationwithin30daysofreceivinganaccess
applicationorwithintheextendedsection14Aduration,theagencyisdeemedtohave
refusedaccesstothedocuments(section19(2)(b)).A'deemedrefusal'isconsideredto
beadeterminationthatissubjecttoreviewandappeal.
84. Thefollowinggraphshowsthepercentageofapplicationsreceivedbytheagenciesin
the2012-13financialyearthatwerenotdeterminedwithinthe30daytimeframe.

0
80
45
11
176
18
9
32
38
21
415
57
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
NumberofFOIapplicationscarriedoverfromthepreviousfinancial
year(2011-12)
*

32
* Inresponsetotheauditquestionnaire,DEWNRadviseditwasunabletocalculatethenumberofapplicationsnot
determinedwithinthe30-daystatutorytimeframe,andthatthenumberofnewFOIapplicationsreceivedinthe2012-
13financialyearwas81.ThisfigurealsoappearedintheFreedomofInformationAnnualReport2012-13.In
responsetotheprovisionalreport,DEWNRadvisedthatthenumberofapplicationsreceivedduring2012-13
financialyear,whichwerenotdeterminedwithin30dayswas82.
85. Thisgraphshowsthatfiveoftheagenciesfailedtodetermineover50percentoftheir
applicationsreceivedinthe2012-13financialyear,withinthe30daystatutory
timeframe.
Agenciesreasonsforfailingtodetermineapplicationsintime
86. Inorderfrommosttoleastcommon,belowarethereasonsidentifiedbytheagencies
totheauditforfailingtodeterminetheirapplicationswithintime:
lackofresources(budgetary/staff)
waitingtoreceiveadviceordocumentsfromdifferentsectionsofthedepartment
other
negotiatingwiththeapplicant
seekinglegaladvice
seekingministerialadvice.
35
87. Theotherreasonssubmittedbytheagenciesincluded:
receivingmultipleapplicationsatthesametime
complexity,sizeandbreadthoftheapplication
consultingwiththirdparties
slowordelayedresponsesfromthirdpartiesconsulted.
88. Theauditcollectedsimilardatainrelationtofailuretodetermineinternalreview
applicationswithinthe14daystatutorytimeframe.

35
Agenciesresponsestoauditquestion31.
15.3
61.6
24.4
34.1
74.6
57.0
47.9
63.3
24.2
99.2
46.8
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
Percentageofapplicationsnotdeterminedwithin30days
% of applications not determined within 30-days
*101.2

33
Impactsonagenciesdeterminationresponsetimes
Resourcing
89. Thedataaboveshowsthatagenciesmainreasonfordeterminationdelayis
resourcing.Accordingtoonewitness:
So,theoreticallyeverysingle
FOIIdonowisadeemedrefusalbecauseit'sbysheer
weightofnumbers,it'sphysicallyimpossibletomeetthem.
36
90. Accordingtoanotherwitness:
Whatwehavesee[sic]thereisthatadramaticincreasein
extensionoftime,certainlywithintheagenciesIhave
workedin,becausetheonlyoptionisthentogo
considerablyovertimebecauseyoucan'tsatisfythe
requestofferedin18to20workingdays.OtherStates
have45workingdaysintheirAct,sowearestillsitting
with30calendardays,sothatiskindofanarchaic
processandthathasbeenahugeimpedimentsince2007
untilnow,andthat'sacrossagencies.

Ifthere
couldbeonechange,apartfromthetechnology
verification,wecertainlywouldlookatthedate,even
justtochangethatwordingto30workingdaysbecause,as
Isaid,youloseupto10daysbecausethereareweekends
andpublicholidays,yourstaffdon'tgenerallydon'twork
thosedaystobeabletoprocessrequests.Thatis
certainlyafrustrationbutitisbecauseoftheincrease
inapplications.
37
91. The30dayaccessapplicationprocessingperiodwasintroducedasaresultof
amendmentstotheActin2001(substitutinga45dayperiod).Inresponsetomy
provisionalreport,DPCraisedissuewiththeimpactofconsultationwiththirdpartieson
meetingthelegislated30dayprocessingperiod.
38
DEWNRalsohadconcernsabout
thebrevityofthistimelimit.
39
However,inmyview,itisappropriate.Agenciesneedto
considerproperlyresourcingFOI.Agenciesarealsoabletoresorttosection14Aofthe
Act,whichallowsthemtoextendthetimeinwhichtorespondtoanapplication.
92. Therearealsootherfactorswhichprohibittimelydeterminations,someofwhichI
outlinebelow.
Consultationwithintheagencyandtheagencysmediaunit
93. TheauditreceivedevidencefromseveralwitnesseswhonotedthatFOIprocessing
anddocumentreleasedoesnothappenaseasilyasitusedto.
94. Onesaidthatarelativelyquickprocessusedtooccuronreceiptofanapplication.But
nowFOIofficersarehamperedfromperformingtheirrolebyalotmoremeetings
occurringwhereyouneedgo[sic]throughanddiscussthedocuments.Sometimes,the
mediaunitintheagencyalsohastobeconsulted.
40

36
37
38
ResponsefromDPCtoOmbudsmandated16April2014.
39
ResponsefromDEWNRtoOmbudsmandated14February2014.
40

34
Ministerialnotingandgettingthegreenlight
95. Further,therearetimeconstraintsinthepracticeofministerialnoting.Thisisa
practicewhichhasdevelopedovertime,inwhichstategovernmentagenciesprovide
theirMinisterwithcopiesofapplicationsand/ordraftorcompleteddeterminations
togetherwiththedocumentswhicharethesubjectoftheapplication,fornotingand,to
quoteonewitness,forgivingthegreenlight.
41
96. ItappearsthatthismayhaveevolvedfromaCabinetdirectiveinMarch2003requiring
stategovernmentagenciestoadvisetheirMinisterofanapplicationandits
determinationtwodayspriortothedeterminationbeingsenttotheapplicant.State
Recordsadvisedinresponsetomyprovisionalreportthattheintentionofthisdirective
wassimplytoprovideministerswithaheadsupofwhatwasintendedtobereleased
andnothingmore.
42
97. Inotethatsection29(6)oftheActineffectallowsaMinistertodirectthata
determinationbemadebyagenciesforwhichtheyareresponsible:
Adeterminationisnotsubjecttoreviewunderthissectionifitismadebyoratthe
directionoftheprincipalofficeroftheagencyoratthedirectionofapersonorbodyto
whichtheprincipalofficerisresponsible.
98. MyviewinthisregardappearstodifferfromthatofStateRecordsinitsguideline
ProcessingFOIApplications.Thisguidelinesays:
WhenanapplicationisreceiveditisimportanttodecidewhetherthePrincipalOfficerof
youragencyandyourMinistershouldbenotified.WhenadvisingtheMinisterofthese
applicationsnodirectioncanbegiventoanAccreditedFOIOfficer(oracceptedbythe
AccreditedFOIOfficer)inrelationtotheconductoftheapplication.
43
99. Bywayofexplanationofmyview,principalofficerisdefinedinsection4tomean,in
thecaseofeachoftheagencies,theChiefExecutiveOfficeroftheagency.TheChief
ExecutivesoftheagenciesareeachresponsibletotheiragencysMinister.Inmyview,
itfollowsthatundersection29(6),aMinistermaydirectthataparticulardetermination
bemade,onanapplicationreceivedbyanagencyforwhichtheyareresponsible.I
discussthislaterinthereport,aswellastheviewsofStateRecords.
100. However,oneoftheresultantproblemsisthetimeapparentlytakenforthisministerial
notingtooccur.StateRecordssaysintheguideline:
IfyourMinisterhasadvisedthattheywishtobeinformedoftheoutcomeofaparticular
applicationacopyofthefinaliseddeterminationshouldbeforwardedtothemtwo
workingdayspriortothedeterminationbeingforwardedtotheapplicant.Thisenablesthe
Ministertobemadeawareoftheoutcomeoftheapplicationshouldheorsheneedto
respondtoanyqueriesasaresultofaccessbeingprovidedtotheinformation.
44
101. OnewitnessgaveevidencethatittookonemonthfortheMinistersofficetoadvisethat
theagencysdraftdeterminationcouldbefinalisedandsenttotheapplicant.The
witnesscommented:
asFOIofficers,wedoourabsolute
besttogetthedocumentspreparedandreadytogoouta
weekinadvanceofthe30daytimeframetoprovidethetwo
daynotingprocessrequiredunderthegovernmentspolicy,

41
42
ResponsefromStateRecordsofSouthAustraliatoOmbudsmandated12February2014.
43
StateRecordsofSouthAustralia,ProcessingFOIApplicationsguideline,January2013version12,p16.
44
StateRecordsofSouthAustralia,ProcessingFOIApplicationsguideline,January2013version12,p25.

35
anditcouldstillbeamonthoverduebythetimeitsgone
throughthehandsofpeoplethatneedtoreviewitand
mediaandtheministerandCEOsofficeetctoactuallyget
thedocumenttotheapplicant.
45
102. Inoneexternalreviewconductedbymyoffice,theformerDepartmentofPlanningand
LocalGovernmentwaitedthreemonthsfortheMinistertonotetheagencys
determination.Theagencyadvisedmyofficethatithadmadeitsdeterminationinmid-
January2011,whichwasnotedsixdayslaterbytheMinister.However,theagency
thenchosetofurtherdelaythematterbyawaitingtheoutcomeofaministerialreshuffle
andbyprovidingthenewMinisterthedeterminationforhisapprovalsome14weeks
later.Whenaskedwhythishadoccurred,theagencyadvisedthatitwasthought:
prudenttoawaittheannouncementofthenewMinisterforUrbanDevelopmentand
PlanningandprovidethatMinisterwithacopyofthedraftdetermination.
46
103. IdealwiththeissueofministerialnotingindetaillaterinPart8ofthereport.
Internalsearchingfordocuments
104. Asignificantfactoridentifiedbyagenciesintheauditwhichcontributedtodelayin
meetingthetimelimits,waswaitingfortherequesteddocumentstobeprovidedtothe
FOIofficersbytheiragencycolleagues.OnreceiptofanFOIapplication,theagencys
FOIofficerscommonlysendoutanemailacrosstheiragencyforstafftoundertake
searchesfortherequesteddocumentsandtogivethemtotheFOIofficersfortheir
consideration.IcommentonthisfurtherinPart6ofthereport.
Delayingettingsignoff
105. OnewitnessinformedtheauditthatdelayscanbeattributabletotheChiefExecutive
beingunabletosignoffoninternalreviewsandextensionsoftimeinatimelyfashion.
47
GettingtimelyaccesstotheCEcanbeverydifficult.Therearetimeswhenthatindividual
willbeinterstateonbusiness,butbecausethereisno-oneactingintherole,itisnot
possibletogetinternalreviewdeterminationsortimeextensionssignedduringthat
period.AlmosteveryotherdelegationheldbytheCEcanbesubdelegatedasnecessary.
ItisunclearwhyFOIisaspecialcase.
48
106. Asprincipalofficer,
49
aChiefExecutiveisrequiredtosignextensionsoftimefor
determininganapplicationatfirstinstanceundersection14AoftheAct.However,a
literalreadingoftheActsuggeststhatwhileinternalreviewapplicationsmustbe
addressedtotheprincipalofficer,
50
itisarguablethatthispersondoesnotneedtosign
offontheinternalreviewdeterminations.Therehasbeensomeconfusionexpressedto
myofficeovertheyearsaboutthisissue,andalsowhetherornottheprincipalofficeris
abletodelegatetheirpower.
107. Itwouldbehelpfulifthestatusoftheofficertoconductaninternalreviewandthe
principalofficersabilitytodelegatepowerwereclarifiedinthelegislation.

45
Transcriptofevidence,p10-11.
46
LetterfromDepartmentofPlanningandLocalGovernmenttoOmbudsmandated8September2011.Agencyreference:
F2010/001511;Ombudsmanreference:2011/5853.
47
FreedomofInformationAct1991,section14A.
48
EmailfromwitnesstoDeputyOmbudsmandated6November2013.
49
SeeFreedomofInformationAct1991,section4.
50
FreedomofInformationAct1991,section29(2).

36
RECOMMENDATION 7
ThestatusoftheofficerrequiredtoconductaninternalreviewshouldbeclarifiedintheAct,as
wellastheprincipalofficersabilitytodelegatetheirpower.

RespondingtobroadorunclearFOIrequestsofregularapplicants
108. TheActisinplacetoenhanceopennessandaccountabilityofgovernment,andto
enablemembersofthepublic,includingMembersofParliamenttoaccessgovernment-
heldinformationtowhichtheyarelawfullyentitled.Agenciesareobligedtoassist
applicantsintheiraccessrequests;togiveeffecttotheActinawaythatassiststhe
publicandMPstoexercisetheirrights;andtoensurethatapplicationsaredealtwith
promptlyandefficiently(section3A(2)).
109. Significantly,andappropriatelyinmyview,MPsenjoydispensationfromtheusualfees
andchargesundertheActuptoaregulatedthresholdamount.Thecurrentthresholdis
$1000.
51
Quiteproperly,manyMPsusetheActtoassistthemtodischargetheir
representativeresponsibilities.Thecommunityandtheirconstituencywouldexpectno
less,andthisispartofahealthydemocraticprocess.
110. Overthepastfiveyears,therehasbeenasignificantincreaseinthenumberofFOI
applicationsacrossgovernmentdepartmentsbytheseMPs.Myofficehasalso
experiencedincreasingnumbersofexternalreviewsbeingsoughtbyMPs(Ihave
reportedonthisinmyannualreports).
111. Ihaveobserved,however,thatthereareanincreasingnumberofMPapplications
whicharecouchedeitherintermsofbroadquestionsorrequirementsofagencies.
TryingtodealwithsuchapplicationsmeanstheagencyexpendingfurtherFOI
resources.Inoneapplicationprovidedtotheaudit,forexample,anMPstipulatedwhat
theFOIofficerneededtoaddressinthescheduleofdocumentsinresponsetotheir
application:
IrequestalldocumentsinfilenumberREVcreatedon12/07/2012,titledRequestfor
Information:ETSARetailers2012/2013.
Theschedulewillincludethefile/docketnameandnumberanddatecreated.The
schedulewillalsolistanyandallbriefs/advices/filesthatweresentbythedepartmentto
theMinistersofficeduringthesameperiod.TheMinisterialmaterialwillidentifyitsname
andfilenumber,datesenttotheoffice,andadescriptionofitscontent.
52
112. Anotherapplicationrequested:

Thetotalnumberofcalls,andcostofcalls,madefromDepartmentaltelephones
(includingmobiletelephones)(hereaftertelephones)to
1. the1194Telstraspeakingclockservice
2. the1196Telstraweatherservice
3. the1234TelstrainformationservicewhichincludesWhitePages,Yellow
Pages,Weather,MovieTimes,SportScoresetc(andpriortoNovember30,
2012,aWakeupandReminderservice)
4. allnumberswiththeprefixes:
a.19009xxxxx
b.19029xxxxx
c.19022xxxxx

51
FreedomofInformation(FeesandCharges)Regulations2003,regulation6.
52
Applicantreference:FOI718/CE;Agencyreference:T&F12/3781.

37
5. Wherepossibleforitemd.above,thethreenumbersthatwerecalledmost
oftenfromtelephonesforthesubjectfinancialyear.
6. DetailsofanyrequirementsfromtheDepartmentdirectedtostafftorepay
thosecostsforantserviceslistedaboveand/oranydisciplinaryactiontaken
inrelationtothesame.
TIMEFRAME:2010/11,2011/12,2012/13financialyears.
[NOTE1-IacceptnoFeeinrelationtothisrequestbeingchargedwithoutprior
agreementinwritingviamycontactdetails.]
[NOTE2-IwouldbegratefulifIcanbedirectedtowherethisinformationispublicly
availableifthatisthecase]
[NOTE3-unlessexpresslystatedintherequest,wherethenamesorpersonal
informationofanindividualmightbedisclosedbytherequest,theDepartmentis
permitted(whereitisdeemednecessary)tomaskorotherwisede-identifysuchpersonal
identifyinginformation]
[NOTE4-Idonotconsenttothisrequestbeingpublishedwithoutmypriorpermission]
[NOTE5-Partsofthisrequestareseverablesoastofallwithinthefreeprocessinglimit,
suchthatifthatlimitisexceeded,elementsofthisrequestmaybetreatedasseverable
starting,
firstly,withtheoldestyearinthetime-frameandseveringeachyearuntilwithinthe
freeprocessinglimit,exceptanduntilonlythemostrecentcompletecalendaryear
remainsand
then,ifthefreeprocessinglimitisstillexceeded,startingwiththelastnumbered
iteminthelistaboveandproceedingwithseveranceofeachitemuntilthescopeof
therequestcomeswithinthatfreeprocessinglimitsothat,ultimately,intheoryonly
item1forthemostrecentfinancialyearcomprisesthescopeoftherequest].
53
113. Inmyview,suchapplicationscanbemisconceived.
114. Insayingthis,theauditreceivedevidencethatoneofthereasonsforincreaseduseofFOI
byoppositionandminoritypartyMPsmaybetheincreaseinnumberofoutstanding
QuestionsonNotice.Bymid-October2013,theauditwasinformedthatthenumberof
outstandingQuestionsonNoticeinbothhousesoftheparliamenthadrisentoover3500.
OnewitnesscommentedthatwhileitwasdoubtfulthatansweringtheQuestionsonNotice
wouldstoptheflowofFOIrequestsfromoppositionandminoritypartyMPs,itmight
meanthattheFOIsaremorespecificandnarrowerintheirscope.
54
115. RegardlessofthereasonsforthisincreasedandregularuseofFOI,applicants,MPs
andagenciesalike,haveresponsibilitiestobemindfulofhowpublicresourcesare
used.TheNSWOmbudsmannotedasimilartrendinNSWandreportedonthisissue
inhisreviewoftheNSWFreedomofInformationAct1989in2009.Iendorsehisview:
Regularusersofthesystemsharetheresponsibilityformakingthislegislationwork
effectively.TherewillneverbeunlimitedresourcesforFOIandweurgeregularusersto
availthemselvesoftraininginthesystemtomakesurethey,andtheirstaff,usepublic
resourcesasefficientlyandeffectivelyaspossiblewhileexercisingtheirrighttoaccess
information.
55

116. DPCrespondedtomyprovisionalreportsupportingtheNSWOmbudsmansview,and
highlightedthatMPsaccessapplicationshavebecomeasourceoffrustration,inthat:
theyhavebecomeincreasinglyinclinedtoseekaverybroadrangeofdocuments
withnoparticularfocus

53
AgencyreferenceDPC13/2527.
54
55
OpeningupGovernmentreportonreviewoftheFreedomofInformationAct1989(NSW),NSWOmbudsman,p89.

38
theyaskcomplexquestionswhichcannotbeansweredwithoutexpending
significantagencyresources
theyoftenincludeinstructionsdetailinghowanaccessapplicationshouldbe
processed
theywill,onoccasion,suggestthatFOIofficersmakejudgementsastothe
comparativeworthofdocuments.
56
Consequencesofagenciesdelaysinmakingdeterminations
Diminishedconfidenceingovernment
117. RepeatedagencydelayinrespondingwithinFOIstatutorytimeframescandiminish
publicconfidenceingovernmentandreflectpoorlyonagenciescommitmenttoopen
andaccountablegovernment.Inmyview,thefiguressetoutearlierinthispartshow
thatthecurrentsituationisnotsustainable.
Applicantsmaynotknowtheirreviewandappealrights
118. Agenciesmustnotifyapplicantsoftheirreviewandappealrightsintheirdetermination.
Intheinstancewherethereisnoactivedeterminationbytheagency,applicantsare
oftennotinapositiontoknowoftheserights.Theonustoescalatetheprocessand
applyforarevieworappealofadeemedrefusalstillfallstotheapplicant,eventhough
theremayhavebeennocommunicationatallfromtheagency.Forthisreason,itis
importantforapplicantstobewellinformedabouttheirreviewandappealrightsfrom
theoutset.Inmyview,thiscanoccurthroughanacknowledgementprocess.
119. Onthequestionofwhethertheagencies,asamatterofpractice,sendaletterto
acknowledgereceiptofFOIapplications,alldepartmentsadvisedthattheydo.Two
agencies,DFEESTandDPTIadvisedthattheydonot,asamatterofpractice,
acknowledgereceiptofapplicationsforinternalreview.
120. DFEESTadvised:
Duetotheshortresponsetimeframeforinternalreview,acknowledgementlettersarenot
senttotheFOIapplicant.Thisprocesswillbeconsideredaspartofcontinuous
improvementstotheFOIprocess.
57
121. DPTIsaid:
Theshorttimeframesapplicabletotheinternalreviewprocessareconsideredtonegate
thevalueofanacknowledgementletter.Inaddition,itisnotedthattheyarenot
required.
58
RECOMMENDATION 8
TheActshouldrequireagenciestopromptlyacknowledgereceiptofanaccessapplicationand
anapplicationforinternalreview.Bothacknowledgementsshouldinformtheapplicantofthe
relevantreviewandappealrightsandtimelines,particularlyintheeventoftheagencyfailingto
makeanactivedeterminationwithinthestatutorytimeframes.
Inthemeantime.theagenciesshouldadoptthispracticeasamatterofpolicy.

56
ResponsefromDPCtoOmbudsmandated16April2014.
57
DFEESTresponsetoauditquestion10.
58
DPTIresponsetoauditquestion10.

39
122. Inmyview,theActshouldalsoallowapplicantsandagenciestonegotiateextensions
oftimetodealwithapplications,attheinitialdeterminationandinternalreviewlevel.
Applicantsrightsofreviewandappealshouldremainpreserved,however.I
understandthatthisalreadyoccurstosomedegree,eventhoughthistakesthe
processoutsidetheAct.

RECOMMENDATION 9
TheActshouldallowapplicantsandagenciestonegotiateextensionsoftimetodealwithan
accessapplication,bothattheinitialdeterminationandinternalreviewlevel.However,
applicantsrightsofreviewandappealmustbepreserved.
Applicantsstillbeartheburdenoffees
123. UnlesswaiverundertheActispossible,
59
applicantsmustlodgeafeewiththeagency
uponrequestingaccessandalsouponrequestinganinternalreview(thesame
amount).Thefeesarecurrently$31.50.
124. TheActprovidesthatifoninternalreview,theagencyvariesorreversesa
determinationsothataccesstoadocumentistobegiven,thentheagencymustrefund
thefeepaidinrespectofthereview(section29(4)).
125. Inmyview,agenciesshouldbeobligedtorefundfeesiftheyhaveexceededthe
statutorytimelimittodealwithapplications(particularlyastheyhaveavailabletothem
therighttoextendthetimetoinitiallydealwiththeapplicationundersection14A).
126. Asamatterofgoodpublicpolicy,thepublicshouldnothavetobeartheburdenof
governmentagenciesinabilitytocomplywithstatutorytimelimits.
127. Insayingthis,Idonotthinkthattheapplicantshaveanunqualifiedrighttorequire
agenciesresourcestobeusedinaparticularway.In2012,theAustralianInformation
CommissionerreleasedhisReviewofchargesundertheFreedomofInformationAct
1982(Cth).
60
Thatreviewrecommendedtheimpositionofadiscretionaryceilingon
FOIprocessingandchargesof40hoursprocessingtimebyagencies(following
consultationwiththeapplicant).Isupportthisview.
RECOMMENDATION 10
TheActshouldprovidethat:
agenciesmustrefundthefeestoanapplicantiftheyexceedtheinitialdeterminationor
internalreviewtimelimitationsundertheAct
agencieshaveadiscretiontoimposeaceilingof40hoursforprocessingaccess
applicationsfollowingconsultationwiththeapplicant.
ExternalreviewauthoritiesandtheDistrictCourtalsobeartheburden
128. Numerousexternalreviewapplicationstomyofficearearesultofagenciesbeing
unabletomaketheirdeterminationsintime;anditisoftenthecasethatagencieshave

59
FreedomofInformationAct1991,section53andFreedomofInformation(FeesandCharges)Regulations2003.
60
Seehttp://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-information/foi-resources/freedom-of-information-reports/review-of-charges-under-
the-freedom-of-information-act-1982(asat19December2013).

40
notbeenableorareunwillingtoavailthemselvesofsection14Atoextendthetimeto
dealwiththeapplicationatfirstinstance.
129. Asaconsequence,whenthemattercomestoexternalreview,theagencyhasnot
turneditsmindtotheapplicationandthedocumentshavenotbeencollectedor
collated.Thiscanplaceanunnecessaryburdenonmyoffice.
130. ExternalreviewauthoritiesundertheActdonothavethepowertoremitdeemedor
inadequatedeterminationsbacktoagenciesfortheirreconsideration.Anecdotal
evidencefromagenciestomyofficesuggeststhatforsomeagencies,itiseasierto
allowthestatutorytimetopassandletmyofficedothework.Insuchmatters,the
externalreviewauthorityhastobeartheburdenofagenciesinabilitytomanageits
staffingresourcesandprocesses.
131. InotethattheVictorianandNSWActsprovideforremittalbytheirrespectiveexternal
reviewauthoritiesincertaincircumstances.
61
RECOMMENDATION 11
TheActshouldallowanexternalreviewauthoritytoremitdeemedorinadequatedeterminations
backtotheagencyforconsideration.

61
FreedomofInformationAct1982(Vic)section49L;GovernmentInformation(PublicAccess)Act2009(NSW),section93.
SeealsoSubmissionoftheOfficeoftheAustralianInformationCommissionertotheHawkeReviewReviewoffreedomof
informationlegislation,December2012,p29.

41
PART6
JUSTIFYINGFOIDETERMINATIONS-SEARCHINGFORDOCUMENTS
Part6-JustifyingFOIdeterminationssearchingfordocuments

42
Searchingfordocuments
Whatisadocument?
132. TheFOIActiscouchedintermsofdocuments.ThepreambletotheActtalksof
providingpublicaccesstoofficialdocumentsandrecordsandcorrectionofpublic
documentsandrecordsinappropriatecases.Section12providesthatapersonhasa
legallyenforceablerighttobegivenaccesstoanagencysdocumentsinaccordance
withthisAct.
133. TheActinclusivelydefinesadocumentasanythinginwhichinformationisstoredor
fromwhichinformationmaybereproduced(section4).
134. Thisdefinitionprovideslittleguidance,anddoesnotfullytakeintoaccountthe
advancesintechnology.Onthisissue,onewitnessstated:
itdoesn'tprovideanygreatdirection.
Obviously,we'vehadlegaladviceandOmbudsmanreviews
thathavegivenusdirection,butthegovernment'slackor
willingnesstoputtheActonthefloorofparliamentto
makechangeshasreallymadeitdifficultforagenciesto
knowwheretheboundariesarewithtechnologyandobviously
thebiggestincreasenowispeopleusingtheirmobile
phonesastheirmaincommunication.Textmessage,iPads,
allthosemediumsthathavecomein,howdoyouextract
thatdata?Howisitthenstoredinthatcentralrecord
keepingsystems?So,reallybecomingquitecomplexandthe
Actcertainlyhasn'tkeptupwiththat.
62
135. Bywayofcontrast,theFreedomofInformationAct1982(Cth)definesadocumentas:
4.Interpretation
"document"includes:
(a)anyof,oranypartofanyof,thefollowingthings:
(i) anypaperorothermaterialonwhichthereiswriting;
(ii) amap,plan,drawingorphotograph;
(iii) anypaperorothermaterialonwhichtherearemarks,figures,symbolsor
perforationshavingameaningforpersonsqualifiedtointerpretthem;
(iv)anyarticleormaterialfromwhichsounds,imagesorwritingsarecapableofbeing
reproducedwithorwithouttheaidofanyotherarticleordevice;
(v) anyarticleonwhichinformationhasbeenstoredorrecorded,eithermechanically
orelectronically;
(vi)anyotherrecordofinformation;or
(b)anycopy,reproductionorduplicateofsuchathing;or
(c)anypartofsuchacopy,reproductionorduplicate;
136. DefinitionsinotherFOIlegislationalsoaddressaccesstometadataandbackupfiles,
forexample,andthereasonablepracticabilityofaccessingthisinformation.
63

62
63
RighttoInformationAct2009(Qld),sections28and29.

43
Wheretosearchfordocuments
137. InordertomeettheirobligationsundertheAct,agenciesmustbeabletoadequately
conductsearchesforrequesteddocuments.TheActandFOIlegislationgenerally,is
necessarilyreliantontheeffectivenessofanagencysrecordsmanagementsystem
anditseaseofsearchabilityandretrievability.
138. StateRecordsFreedomofInformationandSufficiencyofSearchguideline
64
provides
alistofcommonplacesthatanagencyshouldsearchtolocatedocuments,including:
officedesks,filingcabinetsandcompactusstorage
recordsmanagementsystemsandbusinesssystems
computerdrivesandfilesincludingpersonaldrivesandfilesifnecessary
computerdiscsandotherportablestoragedevicesincludingportablecomputers
notepads,diariesandcalendars
audioandvideorecordings
offsitestoragelocations
StateRecordsarchivalcollection
emailaccounts
homecomputerswherestaffmaybeworkingfromhome;and
governmentmobiledevices,andpersonalmobiledevicesusedforbusiness
purposes.
139. Withelectroniccommunicationsandstorage,andmosttransactionsand
communicationsoccurringonline,thechallengesforFOIofficersareincreasing.One
witnesstoldtheaudit:
It'sabigissueatthemoment.
65
It'swhateveryone'stalkingaboutatthemomentat
allourmeetings;emails,electronicrecordsarecausing
greatdifficulties.
66
It'sstrugglingtokeepupwiththechanging
worldofthegovernmentandparticularly,Iguess,one
frustrationthatweconstantlytalkaboutasFOIofficers
isthelackofdirectionwithintheActinrelationto
technologies:whatconstitutesadatabaseandaccessinga
database,howfaryouhavetogotosatisfythe
requirementsofsufficiencyofsearchandobviouslyalso
thentheapplicant'sexpectationsofwhatsystemsweshould
haveasbeingafunctioningovernment.That'scertainly,
fromtalkingtomycolleaguesandmyownexperience,that
isourbiggestfrustrationisthatthere'sjustonelittle
linethatreferstobasicallycomputersorthereabouts.
67
Butitis,thecruxofitissimple.Ifyouarenot
goodatrecordsmanagementandyoudon'thavegoodmetadata
andwhatever,howisitthatyouknowwhattosearchfor?
Wearefacingthisnow.
68
140. ThegovernmentsrecentpoliciesonOpenDataisanacknowledgementofchanging
technologicaltimes.TheFOIActisinneedofupdatingandofferinggreaterguidance
onaccesstoinformation,inrecognitionofelectroniccommunications,case

64
http://www.archives.sa.gov.au/files/foi_guidelines_sufficiencyofsearch.pdf,June2013,Version1(asat4December2013).
65
66
67
68

44
managementandelectronicrecordstorage.IalsonotethattheActstillprovidesfor
applicationstobeinwritingandforfeepaymentstoaccompanyapplications,which
mustbelodgedattheofficeoftheagency.Otherstategovernmentservicesallow
onlineapplicationsandfeepayments.
141. Inresponsetomyprovisionalreport,StateRecordsadvisedthattogetherwiththe
eGovernmentDirectorateofDPC,itiscurrentlyexploringhowonlineapplicationsand
paymentcanbemade.Thiswillrequirefunding,appropriateongoingresourcing,and
supportfromagencies.
69
RECOMMENDATION 12
TheActshouldbeupdatedtorecognisetechnologicaladvancementsinelectronic
communicationsandstorage,andmodernrecordsmanagementpractices.
Sufficiencyofsearch
142. TheFOIActdoesnotdealwithwhatisrequiredwhenagenciesareunabletolocatethe
requesteddocuments.TheDistrictCourthassuggestedthatanagencyssearchforthe
documentsshouldbereasonableandsufficient.
70
143. Bywayofcontrast,equivalentlegislationinVictoria,WesternAustralia,Queensland
andtheCommonwealthallexpresslyprovidethatifdocumentscannotbefoundordo
notexist,thenthisisconstruedasadeterminationtorefuseaccess.Inoteinparticular
section26(1)and(2)oftheFreedomofInformationAct1992(WA):
(1) Theagencymayadvisetheapplicant,bywrittennotice,thatitisnotpossibleto
giveaccesstoadocumentif

(a) allreasonablestepshavebeentakentofindthedocument;and
(b) theagencyissatisfiedthatthedocument
(i) isintheagencyspossessionbutcannotbefound;or
(ii) doesnotexist.
(2) ForthepurposesofthisActthesendingofanoticeundersubsection(1)inrelation
toadocumentistoberegardedasadecisiontorefuseaccesstothedocument,
andonarevieworappealunderPart4theagencymayberequiredtoconduct
furthersearchesforthedocument.
144. ItwouldbeappropriatetoimportsuchaprovisionintotheAct.Agenciesappearto
strugglewithofferingadequateexplanationstoapplicantswhentheycannotlocate
documents.Ioutlinetheagenciesresponsestotheauditonthisissuebelow.
145. ItwouldalsobehelpfulfortheActtoexpresslyprovidethatanagencysinabilityto
locatetherequesteddocumentsisineffectadeterminationtorefuseaccess,andisa
reviewableandappealabledeterminationundertheAct.

69
70
AkritidisvPoliceCommissioner[1998]SADC291(23April1999),[20].

45
RECOMMENDATION 13
TheActshouldincludeaprovisionsimilartosection26oftheFreedomofInformationAct1992
(WA),thatanagencycandeterminetorefuseaccessonthebasisthatdocumentscannotbe
foundordonotexist.
Adeterminationofthisnatureshouldbesubjecttoreviewandappeal.
146. Applicantsoftenraiseconcernsaboutthesufficiencyofanagencyssearchfor
requesteddocumentsattheapplicationandreviewlevel.Inthelastfinancialyear,my
officeconducted21externalreviewsinwhichthesufficiencyofagenciessearchesfor
documentswasinissue.
71
Difficultiesconductinginternalsearchesfordocuments
147. ItiscommonpracticeforFOIofficerstonotifytherelevantareasintheiragencyofan
accessapplication,andseekaresponseastowhatdocumentstheyholdwithinthe
scopeoftheapplication.
148. Onthequestionofthedifficultiesexperiencedinthisprocess,sevenoftheagencies
identifieddepartmentaldelayinrespondingasthemostfrequent.
149. Otherdifficultiesidentifiedincluded:
complexityandvolumeofdocumentswithinscope
departmentallackofunderstandingofFOIobligations
difficultieswithrecordsmanagementsystems
uncertaintyofwhatbusinessunitmightholdtherequesteddocuments
timerequiredforseniormanagementtosignoffonasearchfordocuments.
72
150. DHAcommentedthat:
Noneoftheoptionsprovidedaboveaccuratelyreflectchallenges,whichareminorby
nature,experiencedbyDepartmentalstaffconductingsearchesfordocuments.The
DepartmentforHealthandAgeinghaskeyFOIcontactsineveryDivision,eachofwhom
havewiderangingexperienceinthediscoveryandcollationofdocumentsinresponseto
FOIapplications.
Fromtimetotime,adocumentdiscoveryofficerwithinaDivisionwillconsulttheOfficeof
theChiefExecutiveinthedocumentdiscoveryphaseofaFOIapplication,primarilyto
ascertainwhetheradocument(s)iswithinscopeofaFOIapplication.Thisisafairly
uncommonoccurrence,butgiventhesometimesverycomplexscopeofsomeFOI
applications,itistobeexpected.
73
151. InoneexternalreviewofadeterminationbyDPTItoextendthetimeithadtodealwith
anapplicationundersection14AoftheAct,staffdelayinrespondingtotheFOI
officersinternalsearchfordocumentswasakeydifficulty.Inmydetermination,I
commented:

14. WhileIappreciatethattheFOIunitbeganprocessingtheapplicationimmediately,
itappearsthattherewasdelayintherelevantdivisionswithintheagency
respondingtotheFOIunitssearchrequests.Inmyview,theapplicantshouldnot

71
StatisticsfromOmbudsmanSAcasemanagementsystemwheresufficiencyofsearchwasanissuenotedduringexternal
review(2012/2013financialyear).
72
Agenciesresponsetoauditquestion14.
73
DHAresponsetoauditquestion14.

46
havetobearthedelaycausedbyagencysinternalmanagementofthe
application.
74
152. Onewitnesscommentedtotheauditthatifagencystaffreceivetoomanyemailsfrom
theFOIofficersseekingdocumentsinresponsetoFOIapplications,theyhitthedelete
button:
Weknowalotofpeoplejust
hitdeleteassoonastheygettheemailthatcomesout
saying"doyouholddocuments".
75
153. Inmyview,suchconductoffendstheSouthAustralianPublicSectorCodeofEthics
andbreachestheStateRecordsAct.
154. Thewitnesssuggestedthatagencystaffreactinthisway,becausethey:
findFOIassomethingthat
stopsthemfromdoingtheirjob.Idontknowthatitsas
sinisterasnotwantingtorelease.Ithinkpeople,asa
departmentwearealldepartmentswouldargue
probablyunderresourcedfortheexpectations.
76
155. Agenciesstaffawarenessoftheneedforaccountabilityandcompliancewithinternal
searchesshouldbeactivelypromotedbytheirChiefExecutiveandsenior
management.
156. Theauditaskedagencieswhethertheyhaddirectives,circularsormemosfromsenior
managementregardingrespondingtoFOIinternalsearchesfordocuments.Two
agenciesadvisedthattheydo,and10advisedthattheydonot.

157. AGDprovidedtheauditwithacopyofaminutefromitsChiefExecutivedated23
August2011toallBusinessUnitHeadswithinthedepartment.Thepurposeofthe
minutewastoremindtheBusinessUnitHeadsoftheirobligationstoensurethatstaff
undertakethoroughandtimelysearchingfordocumentsfollowingarequestbyan
accreditedFOIofficer:
AsPrincipalOfficerofthe[department](AGD),IamresponsibletoensurethatFOI
applicationsaredeterminedwithinthestatutory30calendardayperiod.

AccreditedFOIOfficersandAgencyKeyContactsareexperiencingdifficultyobtaining
documentsfromanumberofbusinessunitsinordertoachievethesetimeframes.

AsaBusinessUnithead,Iremindyouofyourresponsibilitiestoensurethatsearchesare
performedthoroughlyandwithintherequestedtimeframe.
77
158. DTFalsoprovidedtheauditwithacopyofan(unsigned)Procedure-Freedomof
InformationfromtheActingGeneralManager,CorporateServices,datedOctober
2006,stating:
TheFOIOfficerwillidentifythebranch/eslikelytoholdinformationrelevanttotherequest
andinstructthemtoproviderelevantdocuments/records.Wherenoparticularbusiness
unitcanbeidentified,theFOIOfficermayissueageneralrequesttoallbusinessunits.
AnyqueriesregardingarequestmustbeaddressedfortheFOIOfficerassoonas
possibleafterreceiptoftherequest.

74
Ombudsmanreference:2013/04129.
75
76
Transcriptofevidence,p31
77
DocumentssubmittedbyAGDinresponsetoauditquestion11.

47
Businessunitsmustmakeapropersearchofallinformation(irrespectiveofformat)held
bythem,identifyandprovidecopiesofallrelevantinformation,andmeetanytimeframes
setbytheFOIOfficer.Evenifabusinessunitconsidersinformationrelevanttothe
requesttobetoosensitiveforrelease,theymuststillprovidethatinformationtotheFOI
Officer.
78
159. Isupporttheapproachtakenbythesetwoagencies;andencourageallChief
Executivesandseniormanagementtoissueadirectivetotheirstaffabouttheneedto
respondpromptlyandthoroughlytoFOIinternalsearchesfordocuments.
RECOMMENDATION 14

ChiefExecutivesoftheagenciesshouldissueawrittendirectivetoalloftheirstaffaboutthe
needforthemtorespondpromptlyandthoroughlytoFOIinternalsearchesfordocuments.
ThedirectiveshouldremindstaffoftheircomplianceobligationswiththeSouthAustralianPublic
SectorCodeofEthicsandtheStateRecordsAct1997.
SigningoffagencystaffsearchesforFOIdocuments
160. Nineagenciesansweredtotheauditthattheirseniormanagementsignoffonthe
searchesundertakenbyagencystaffinresponsetoaninternalrequestfordocuments
fromFOIofficers.
161. Ofthethreeagenciesthatdonotrequireseniormanagementsignoff(DCS,DCSIand
DPC),two(DCSandDCSI)advisedthatdepartmentalstaffdelayinrespondingisthe
mostfrequentdifficultyencounteredbyFOIofficerswhenconductinginternalsearches
fordocuments.
79
162. Inmyview,seniormanagementsignoffonagencystaffssearchesmaylendagreater
gravitytotheFOIprocesswithintheagency;remindstaffoftheiraccountability
obligations;andencouragecompliance.

RECOMMENDATION 15
Asamatterofpolicy,seniormanagementintheagenciesshouldberequiredtosignoffonthe
searchesundertakenbyagencystaffinresponsetoaninternalrequestfordocumentsfromFOI
officers.
ProceduresforconductingFOIinternalsearches
163. Nineagenciesreportedtotheauditthattheyhaveproceduresforconductinginternal
searchesfordocuments;and10haveatemplate.Mostoftheproceduresincludea
documentsearchchecklisttobecompletedbytheFOIofficerwhenprocessingan
accessrequest.
164. Oneagency(DCS)reportedthatithasneitheradocumentedprocedureortemplatefor
conductinginternalsearches,commenting:

78
DocumentssubmittedbyDTFinresponsetoauditquestion11.
79

48
Whilenothingisformallydocumented,FOIstaffnotedownallactions,includingsearching
forFOIdocumentsonatimesheet.
80
165. StateRecordshasproducedaFreedomofInformationandSufficiencyofSearch
guideline
81
andatemplateofabasicformforstafftousetonotetheirsearches.
82
I
encourageagencieswithouttheirownprocedures,guidelinesortemplatestoutilisethis
helpfulresource.
Conductingareasonablesearchfordocuments
166. Asnotedabove,theDistrictCourthasstatedthatasearchfordocumentsmustbe
reasonableandsufficient.
83
Inmyview,itcanbehelpfulforagenciestoshowan
applicantthatreasonablesearcheshavebeenconductedinresponsetotheirFOI
application,evenwhendocumentsarelocated.
167. Manyoftheagenciesrespondedtotheauditthattheirdeterminationsindicateinbroad
termsthesearchesthathavebeenconductedtolocaterelevantdocuments.
168. Twoagencies(DMITREandDPTI)respondedthatdetailsofsearchesarenotprovided
toapplicants:
Nodetailsofsearchesareprovidedtoapplicants,unlessnodocumentsarelocated.The
applicantisthenonlyadvisedthatextensivesearchesareundertaken,butthesearenot
provided.Itisnotedthatthereisnorequirementtoprovidethisinformationtothe
applicant.
84

Theapplicantisnotprovidedwithdetailsofdocumentsearchesundertakenbythe
agency.ThereisnorequirementundertheFOIActfortheagencytodothis.
85
169. Twootheragencies(PIRSAandAGD)indicatedthattheyprovidedetailsofthe
searchesconductedwherenodocumentsarelocated.AccordingtoPIRSA:
Ifnodocumentswerelocated,thedeterminationstatestheactionsundertakentoattempt
tolocatethedocuments,ie:
- Searchesundertaken,egelectronicsearches(Objective,email),hardcopyfiles,
listingthesearchcriteria
- Enquiriesmade,bystatingwithwhomortowhichDivisionenquiriesweremade.
86
170. Intheeventofbeingunabletolocaterequesteddocuments,agenciesshouldbeableto
demonstratetotheapplicantthatreasonableandsufficientsearcheshavebeen
conducted.Suchdeterminationsshouldaddressasaminimum:
therecordmanagementsystemsanddatabasessearched,alongwitharelevant

80
DCSresponsetoauditquestion12.
81
FreedomofInformationandSufficiencyofSearchguideline,Version1,June2013,availableat
http://www.archives.sa.gov.au/files/foi_guidelines_sufficiencyofsearch.pdf(asat12December2013).
82
http://www.archives.sa.gov.au/foi/foiadmin/foisampleletters.html(asat12December2013).
83
AkritidisvPoliceCommissioner[1998]SADC291(23April1999),[20].
84
DMITREresponsetoauditquestion16.
85
DPTIresponsetoauditquestion16.
86
PIRSAresponsetoauditquestion16.

49
RECOMMENDATION 16
IntheeventofbeingunabletolocaterequesteddocumentsundertheAct,agenciesneedtobe
abletodemonstratetoapplicantsintheirdeterminationthattheyhaveconductedreasonable
andsufficientsearches,showing:
therecordsmanagementsystemsanddatabasessearched,alongwitharelevant
Asamatterofpolicy,theagenciesshouldhaveregardtotheStateRecordsofSouthAustralias
sufficiencyofsearchguideline.
Considerationofagenciesdeterminationsshowingsearches
171. TheauditaskedtheagenciestoprovideacopyoftheirlastFOIdeterminationbefore
theauditdate,inwhichtheyhadconductedsearchesbutwerenotabletolocatethe
requesteddocuments.
172. Allbutoneoftheagenciesresponded.Thetablebelowquotestherelevantportionsof
theagenciesdeterminations.
87
Agency Determination
DFEEST
RecordsheldbytheOfficeoftheChiefExecutiveandWorkforcerelations
havebeensearchedforconfirmationthatanemailwassent.Nosuch
recordhasbeendiscovered.
DECD
Searcheshavebeenconductedforinformationinrelationtoyourrequest.
Nodocumentshavebeenidentifiedwhichrelatetoyourapplication.
DCS nodeterminationprovided
PIRSA
InaccordancewithSection23(1)(b)oftheAct,Iadvisethatnodocuments
havebeenlocatedwithinthescopeofyourrequest.
BelowIhaveoutlinedthenatureofthesearchesandenquiriesmadein
ordertolocatethedocumentsyouseekaccessto:
AsearchofPIRSAselectronicdocumentsandrecordsmanagement
systemwasconducted
EnquiriesweremadewithrelevantofficersofPIRSA
DTF
Asearchofthedepartmentsdatabasesandinformationstoreshasnot
identifiedanydocumentswithinthescopeofyourapplication.
DCSI
Inscopingyourapplication,nodocumentsfallingwithintheparametersof
yourrequestwerelocated.Imustthereforerefuseaccesstotherequested
documentsonthegroundsthatnosuchdocumentsexist.
DHA
Acomprehensivesearchofdepartmentalrecordshasbeenundertakenand
nodocumentswerefoundthatfitwithintheparametersofyourrequest.

87
Documentssubmittedbytheagenciesinresponsetoauditquestion17.

50
DMITRE
InaccordancewithSection23(1)(b)oftheAct,Ihavedeterminedthat,
followingasearchconductedthroughouttheDepartment,norelevant
documentshavebeenlocated.
AGD
Nodocumentswerelocatedasaresultofyourrequest.
OnbehalfoftheAgency,Idetermineon7June2013that,pursuantto
S23(1)(b)oftheFreedomofInformationAct1991(theAct),theAttorney-
GeneralsDepartmentdoesnotholdthedocumentsyouhaverequested.
DEWNR
Section23(1)(b)oftheActstatesthatanagencymustnotifyanapplicantin
writingiftheapplicationrelatestodocumentsthatarenotheldbythe
agency.
Iherebyadvisethatdocumentsrelatingtoyourrequestdonotexist.
DPC AnextensivesearchofDPSsrecordshasbeenconductedandno
documentsrelevanttothisapplicationwerediscovered.
DPTI Ihavedeterminedthattherearenodocumentswithinthescopeofyour
application.
173. Themajorityofthesedeterminationsarenotadequate.Applicantscouldnotfeel
assuredthattheagencyhadconductedareasonableandsufficientsearchinresponse
totheirapplication.
174. StateRecordshasproducedaFOISampleLetter-Determination-NoDocuments
Found,whichincludesthefollowingtexttemplate:
Pursuanttosection23(1)(b)oftheFOIActIadvisethat,followingextensivesearches
conductedthroughouttheagency,Ihavenotbeenabletolocatethedocumentsyouhave
requested.
BelowIhaveoutlinedindetailthenatureandextentofthesearchesandenquiriesmade
inordertolocatethedocumentsyouseekaccessto.Basedonthesearchesand
enquiriesmade,Ihavecometotheconclusionthatthedocumentsareeitherlostand/or
neverexisted.
insertdetailsof:
whereyousearchedincludinglocations
thereasonssearchesweremadeinthoselocations
anexplanationofanyenquiriesthatweremadetolocatedocuments
aconclusionbasedontheabove
Ifyouhaveanyinformationthatmightassistthisagencytolocatethedocumentsyou
haverequestedaccessto,pleaseincludethisinformationinyourapplicationforinternal
review.
88
175. Fromtheabove,itappearsthattheagenciesdonotusethistemplate.
176. Ihaveincludedthefollowingcasestudytohighlighttheimportanceofagencieshaving
effectiverecordsmanagementsystems;adequatelyinterpretingthescopeofan
application;andconductingreasonablesearchesfordocumentswhenrespondingtoan
accessapplicationundertheAct.

88
http://www.archives.sa.gov.au/foi/foiadmin/foisampleletters.html(asat26November2013).

51
Casestudy
DepartmentforCommunitiesandSocialInclusion(2013/06843)
On18March2013,theapplicantmadefourFOIapplicationstoDCSIforaccessto:
1. Allbriefings,speechesandwrittentranslationspreparedbyastaffmemberforaMinisters
overseastravel(DCSI/13/03322)(application1)
2. AlldocumentsrelatingtoastaffmembersoverseastravelwithaMinister(DCS/13/03323)
(application2)
3. Alldocumentsrelatingtothecreationofthepositioncurrentlyoccupiedbyaparticularstaff
member(DCSI/13/03324)(application3)
4. ThedepartmentsOverseasTravelProcurementdocumentsandpoliciesandaparticular
staffmembersapplicationforoverseastravel(DCSI/13/03325)(application4)
Theagencymadethefollowingdeterminations:
1
Application Originaldetermination Internalreviewdetermination

1 2documentsinscope-bothreleased
infull(28May2013)
Determinationconfirmed-noadditional
documentslocated(9July2013)
2 19documentsinscope-10released
infull,8releasedinpart,and1
refusedinfull(22May2013)
Determinationvaried-additionaldocuments
located,3documentsreleasedinfull,and1
document(anemailwith8attachments)
releasedinpart(5July2013)
3 6documentsinscope-2releasedin
full,4releasedinpart(21May2013)
Determinationconfirmed-noadditional
documentslocated(5July2013)
4 6documentinscope-5releasedin
full,1releasedinpart(21May2013)
Determinationvaried-1additionaldocument
located,releasedinfull(5July2013)
ThismattercametomyofficeasacomplaintundertheOmbudsmanAct1972.On2August2013,I
wrotetotheChiefExecutiveoftheagencyandrequestedallrelevantdocumentationandsubmissions.
Inresponsetomyrequest,theagencylocatedadditionaldocuments.Ofthese:
20documentswereidentifiedthathadnotbeenpreviouslylocated,andtheagencyconsidered
thattheywereinscopeoftheFOIapplication/s
6documentswereidentifiedthatwerepreviouslylocatedandwithintheapplicationsscope,
however,theywerenotprovidedtotheapplicant
22documentswereidentifiedthathadnotbeenpreviouslylocated,andtheagencyconsidered
thattheywereoutsidethescopeoftheFOIapplication/s.
Ihaveconsideredthe22additionaldocumentsthattheagencyclaimedwereoutsidethescopeofthe
FOIapplications,andforthemostpart,disagree.Ibasethisviewonthebroadnatureoftheapplications.
Inmyview,theagencyfailedtoconductareasonablesearchfordocuments.
Inhersubmissions,theChiefExecutiveadvisedthattheagencyisalargeandcomplexportfoliowithno
centralisedrecords-managementsysteminplace.Theerrorwhichoccurredwasthatthecorrect
businessareaswerenotidentifiedatthebeginningoftheprocess,inparticularFinancialServices.
Comments
Thiscasestudydemonstratestheimportanceof:
effectiverecordsmanagementandsystems
understandingandclarifyingthescopeofanapplicationatfirstinstancewithapplicants
acentralisedFOIUnitwiththerequisiteknowledgeoftheinternalworkingsofanagency,inorder
tobeabletoconductsufficientsearchesfordocuments.

52
PART7A
JUSTIFYINGFOIDETERMINATIONS-CLAIMINGEXEMPTIONS

Part7A-JustifyingFOIdeterminationsclaimingexemptions

53
Determinationstorefuseaccess-exemptionsintheAct
177. TheActprovidesthatapersonhasalegallyenforceablerighttobegivenaccesstoan
agencysdocumentsinaccordancewiththeAct.
89
Thisrightisgovernedbyrestrictions
thatareconsistentwithnotionsofpublicinterestandthepreservationofpersonal
privacy.
90
178. Whenagenciesreceiveanapplicationforaccesstodocuments,oneofthegroundson
whichtheymaymakeadeterminationtorefuseaccessisifthedocumentsare
exempt.Thetermexemptdocumentisdefinedasadocumentwhichisanexempt
documentbyvirtueofSchedule1.
91
Schedule1totheActlistsexemptionclausesin
relationtodifferenttypesofdocumentsconcerning,forexample:
Cabinet
lawenforcementandpublicsafety
intergovernmentalrelations
personalaffairs
commercialandbusinessaffairs
internalworkingdocuments
legalprofessionalprivilege
judicialfunctions
theeconomyofthestate
operationsofagencies
parliamentaryprivilege.
179. Theexistenceofexemptionsrecognisesthattherearesomedocumentswhich,dueto
publicorprivateinterest,shouldbewithheldfromdisclosure.
TypesofexemptionsinSchedule1
180. Schedule1lists19typesofexemptionclauses;however,thereareover50sub-
clausesandcategoriesofdocumentsembeddedwithinmostoftheseclauses.Clause
7(1),forexample,hasfourcategoriescapturinginformationwhich,ifdisclosed,would
either:
disclosetradesecrets
diminishthecommercialvalueoftherequestedinformation,andonbalancebe
contrarytothepublicinterest
haveanadverseeffectonbusiness,professional,commercialorfinancialaffairs
andonbalance,becontrarytothepublicinterest,or
prejudicethefuturesupplyoflikeinformationtothegovernment,andonbalance
becontrarytothepublicinterest.
92
181. Somedocumentsareexemptbecausetheyfitwithinaparticularclassofdocument-
suchasCabinetdocuments.
93
Othersareexemptbecauseofpredictedharmful
consequencesoftheirdisclosure.Theseexemptionsoftencontainapublicinterest
balancingtest,wheredisclosurewould,onbalancebecontrarytothepublicinterest.
94
Othersareexemptbecausetheirdisclosurewouldoffendlegislation;
95
whileothers
mightbeexemptbecausetheyareprotectedundercommonlawprivilegessuchas
legalprofessionalprivilegeorparliamentaryprivilege.
96

89
FreedomofInformationAct1991,section12.
90
MinisterforEducationandChildDevelopmentvChapman[2013]SADC130(27September2013)[16].
91
SeeFreedomofInformationAct1991,sections4and20(1)(a).
92
FreedomofInformationAct1991,clause7(1)(a)(b)and(c)ofSchedule1.
93
FreedomofInformationAct1991,clause1ofSchedule1.
94
SeeFreedomofInformationAct1991,clauses4,5,7(1),9(1),13(1)(b),16ofSchedule1.
95
SeeFreedomofInformationAct1991,clause12(1)ofSchedule1.
96
FreedomofInformationAct1991,clauses10(1)and17ofSchedule1.

54
182. AsIillustratebelow,applyingtheexemptionsforFOIofficerscanbeatechnicaland
sometimeschallengingexercise.
Agenciesdonthavetorefuseaccesstoexemptdocuments
183. Section3(3)oftheActremindsagenciesthatinformationcanbereleasedifitisproper
andreasonabletodoso,andpermittedorrequiredbyanylaw.Thisisaprovision
whichisoftennotconsideredbyagencies.
184. Further,thewordinginsection20(1)oftheActprovidesagencieswithadiscretionto
refuseaccesstodocumentsthatareexempt.Thatis,agenciesarenotobligedto
refuseaccesstodocumentswhichtheydecideareexempt:
97
20Refusalofaccess
(1) Anagencymayrefuseaccesstoadocument
a) ifitisanexemptdocument;(myemphasis)

185. TheActalsoprovidesthattheparliamentsintentisfortheActtobeinterpretedand
appliedsoastofurthertheobjectsofthisAct,andthatthediscretionsconferredbythe
Actaretobeinterpretedasfaraspossible,inawaythatfavoursdisclosure(without
infringingprivacy).
98
186. Ioftenobservethroughtheexternalreviewprocessandprovidingadvicetoagencies,
thatagenciesfailtoappreciatethediscretionarywordinginthisprovision.
Hasthedepartmentevermadeadeterminationtogiveaccesstoadocument,despitebeing
exemptunderSchedule1?
187. Theauditposedthequestionabovetothe12agencies,tounderstandtheirapproachto
theFOIActsexemptionsandthediscretionaffordedtothemundersection20(1)(a)of
theAct.
99
188. Theauditfoundthat:
10agenciesansweredinthenegative
oneagencyansweredinthepositive(DPC)
oneagencydidnotknow(DPTI).
189. Further,noagencieshadanypoliciesonthematter.
100
190. Inmyview,theseresultsreflectafailuretofullyappreciatetheextentoftheobjectsand
intentoftheAct,anditspolicyunderpinnings.

97
Thereappeartobeexceptions.Forexample,IdonotthinktheActcouldhaveintendedthatanagencyhasadiscretionin
relationtoadocumentwhosereleasewouldconstituteanoffenceunderanAct(seeclause12(1)ofSchedule1).
98
99
Auditquestion40.
100

55
RECOMMENDATION 17
Theagenciesshoulddevelopaninformationdisclosurepolicyhighlighting,inthecontextofthe
objectsandintentoftheFOIAct:
theirdiscretiontogiveaccessevenifarequesteddocumentisexempt
thefactthatmerelybecauseadocumentmightsatisfyanexemptiondoesnotmeanthat
accesstothedocumentmustberefused.
RECOMMENDATION 18
TheActshouldexpresslyprovidethatnothingpreventsanagencymakingadeterminationto
giveaccesstoanexemptdocument.
Determinationstorefuseaccess-givingreasonsissoundadministrativepractice
191. TheActsaysthatonreceiptofanaccessapplication,ifagenciesmakeadetermination
torefuseaccesstotherequesteddocuments,theymustgivereasonsintheirnoticeof
determination.AstheCrownSolicitorhasadvisedagenciesinhisLegalBulletinfor
government:
OnreadingSchedule1,youmayhavetheimpressionthattherearesomanyreasonsfor
refusingaccesstoadocumentthatagenciesfinditeasytowithholddocuments.The
FOIAitselfcontainsanumberofmechanismsthatprovethatimpressiontobemistaken.
Forexample,theadministrativediscretionsintheFOIA,ofwhichtherearemany,areto
beexercisedsoastopromotetheobjectsoftheAct.Also,anagencyisrequiredtojustify
anyclaimsofexemptionandapplicantshavearighttohavedeterminationsreviewed.
Thesefactorsmeanthatanagencycannotmerelyassertadocumentisexempt,lapse
intosilenceandclosethefile.
101
192. Itiscommonplaceforgovernmentdecisionmakerstoberequiredbystatutetoprovide
reasonsfortheirdecisions.Forexample,undertheOmbudsmanAct,theOmbudsman
isrequiredtogiveacomplainantreasonswhendecidingnottoinvestigateacomplaint
ortodiscontinueinvestigatingacomplaint.
102
Likewise,theOmbudsmanisrequiredto
providereasonswhen,attheconclusionofaninvestigation,theagencyisfoundto
havefallenintoadministrativeerror.
103
Anexternalreviewauthorityalsohasan
obligationundertheFOIActtoprovidereasonsforitsdetermination.
104
193. Thereisnorequirementatcommonlawforadministrativedecisionmakerstogive
reasonsfortheirdecisions.
105
However,givingreasonsfordecisionsissound
administrativepracticeandmaintainspublicconfidenceingovernmentdecisionmaking
processes.It:
makesthedecisionmakingprocessopenandaccountable
canensuredecisionmakersexercisemorecareintheirmakingtheirdecision
affordstheaffectedpartytheopportunitytohavethedecisionexplained,to
scrutinisethedecisionandtoseetheextenttowhichtheircasehasbeenheard
andunderstoodbythedecisionmaker

101
LegalBulletinNo11,updatedandreissuedon13January2011,p1.
http://intra.sa.gov.au/communicating/crownsolicitors/legalbulletins/Bulletin11.pdf(asat4December2013).
102
OmbudsmanAct1972,section17(3).
103
OmbudsmanAct1972,section25(2).
104
105
PublicServiceBoardvOsmond(1986)159CLR656,666-7.

56
allowstheaffectedpartytomakeaninformeddecisionaboutwhethertoexercise
anyrightsorrevieworappealand,ifso,thebasisonwhichtheymightarguetheir
case.
106
194. Givingreasonsalsoallowstherevieworappealbodytoconductaproperreviewofthe
decision.ThecommentsofOwenJintheSupremeCourtofWesternAustraliainManly
vMinistryofPremierandCabinet
107
areapposite.Inconsideringtheequivalentof
exemptionclause7ofSchedule1totheActintheFreedomofInformationAct1992
(WA),hesaidofmyWAcounterparts
108
task:
Howcanthe[Information]Commissioner,chargedwiththestatutoryresponsibilityto
decideonthecorrectnessorotherwiseofaclaimtoexemption,decidethematterinthe
absenceofsomeprobativematerialagainstwhichtoassesstheconclusionoftheoriginal
decisionmakerthatheorshehadrealandsubstantialgroundsforthinkingthatthe
productionofthedocumentcouldprejudicethatsupplyorthatdisclosurecouldhavean
adverseeffectonbusinessorfinancialaffairs?Inmyopinionitisnotsufficientforthe
originaldecisionmakertoproffertheview.Itmustbesupportedinsomeway.The
supportdoesnothavetoamounttoproofonthebalanceofprobabilities.Nonetheless,it
mustbepersuasiveinthesensethatitisbasedonrealandsubstantialgroundsandmust
commenditselfastheopinionofareasonabledecisionmaker.
109
ClaimingexemptionsunderSchedule1-givingreasons-section23(2)(f)
195. TheActprovidesinsection23(2)(f)thatinanoticeofdeterminationrefusingaccessto
documents,agenciesmust:
givereasons
showthefindingsonanymaterialquestionsoffactunderlyingthereasons
showthesourcesofinformationonwhichthosefindingsarebased:
110
(f) ifthedeterminationistotheeffectthataccesstoadocumentisrefused
(i) thereasonsfortherefusal,including
(A) thegroundsfortherefusalundersection20(1);and
(B) ifagroundfortherefusalisthatthedocumentisanexempt
documenttheparticularprovisionofSchedule1byvirtueof
whichthedocumentisanexemptdocumentand,ifunderthe
provisiondisclosureofthedocumentmust,onbalance,be
contrarytothepublicinterestinorderforthedocumenttobe
exempt,thereasonswhydisclosureofthedocumentwouldbe
contrarytothepublicinterest;and
(ii) thefindingsonanymaterialquestionsoffactunderlyingthereasons
fortherefusal,togetherwithareferencetothesourcesofinformation
onwhichthosefindingsarebased;
Reasonsforrefusal
196. Inaccordancewithsection23(2)(f)(i),whenclaimingthatrequesteddocumentsare
exempt,agenciesreasonsintheirnoticeofdeterminationmustrecordfirst,thatthe
documentsareexempt;andsecond,theparticularexemptionclauseinSchedule1that
theyarerelyingon.

106
AdministrativeReviewCouncilDecisionMaking:REASONS,BestPracticeGuide4,2007,p1.
http://www.arc.ag.gov.au/Publications/Reports/Pages/Downloads/ARCBestPracticeGuide4Reasons.aspx(asat25
September2013).
107
ManlyvMinistryofPremierandCabinet(1995)14WAR550.
108
WesternAustralianInformationCommissioner.
109
ManlyvMinistryofPremierandCabinet(1995)14WAR550,573.
110
FreedomofInformationAct1991,section23(2)(f).

57
197. Someclausescontainsub-clauses,paragraphsorsub-paragraphswhichmustbe
consideredinaclaimofexemption.Clause16(1)(operationsofagencies),for
example,containsfivewithinparagraph(a).Itisnotenoughforagenciestosimply
claimclause16(1)andnotparticularisewhichofthefiveparagraphsitisclaimingina
determination.Thisisnotanuncommonproblemexperiencedbymyofficeinthe
reviewprocess,andonewhichIhavenotedintheauditreturns.Thisreflectspoorlyon
thelegitimacyofanagencysdetermination,andsuggeststhattheagencyhasnot
turneditsmindtotheirclaimofexemption.Inaddition,itdeprivesapplicantsofthe
opportunitytomakeaninformeddecisionaboutwhetherornottoexercisetheirreview
andappealrights.
Thefindingsonmaterialquestionsoffactandthesourcesofthefindings
198. Inaccordancewithsection23(2)(f)(ii),agenciesalsoneedtoshowthefindingsofthe
materialfactsunderpinningtheirreasons.Further,theyarerequiredtoidentifythe
sourcesoftheirfindings.Otherwisetheapplicant(orthereviewbody)cannotknow
whatwastakenintoaccountintheprocessoftheagenciesreachingtheirexemption
claim.Materialfactsarethefactswhicharerelevanttosupportingthedetermination.
199. Agenciesneedtoidentifytheevidencewhichwasconsideredrelevant,credibleand
significantinrelationtoeachmaterialfindingoffact.AstheCrownSolicitorhas
advisedagencies:
3.Thecontentofdeterminations
Whenanagencymakesadeterminationthatadocumentisexempt(eitherinwholeorin
part)theagencymustexplainwhyie.itmustjustifyitsclaim.Therequirementtoexplain
iscontainedinsection23oftheFOIAandsection48oftheFOIAspecificallyprovides
thatinproceedingsundertheFOIA,theagencycarriestheonusofjustifyingitsclaim.
Anagencyisnotrequiredtogivesomuchdetailinadeterminationthatitrevealsthe
exemptmatterandtherebymakesthedeterminationitselfexempt.Ontheotherhandan
agencywillnotcomplywithsection23bymerelyrepeatingthewordsofthegroundof
exemption.Someexplanationisneeded,ortousethewordsoftheFOIA,theagency
mustexplainanyfindingsonanymaterialquestionsoffactunderlyingthereasonsforthe
refusal.
111
Analysisoftheagenciesdeterminations-claimingexemptions
200. Toassessthe12agenciesunderstandingandcompliancewithsection23(2)(f),the
auditsoughtcopiesoftheirlastfivedeterminations(initialandinternalreview,where
appropriate)priortotheauditdate,whichhadclaimedrequesteddocumentstobe
exempt.
201. Whileallagenciescompliedwithnamingthedocumentsasexemptandtheparticular
clauseinSchedule1,inthemajorityofdeterminationsorpartsofdeterminations:
mostfailedtoshowthefindingsonmaterialquestionsoffactunderlyingthe
reasonsfortherefusal
mostfailedtorefertothesourcesofinformationonwhichthosefindingswere
based
mostfailedtoprovideadequatereasons.

111
LegalBulletinNo11,updatedandreissuedon13January2011,p1.
http://intra.sa.gov.au/communicating/crownsolicitors/legalbulletins/Bulletin11.pdf(asat4December2013).

58
202. Overall,mostdeterminationsfailedtoshowhowtheactualinformationineachofthe
documentswascaughtbyallofthecriteriaintheexemptionclauseswhichthey
claimedasabasisforrefusingaccesstothedocuments.
203. Inthefollowing,Iprovideoneexampleofadeterminationorpartofadetermination
fromeachagencytoillustratehowagenciesstrugglewithmakingadequate
determinations.Idonotincludeconsiderationofthepublicinterestcomponentof
someoftheexemptions,asIdealwiththisinPart7Bofthereport.
DFEEST
204. InresponsetoarequestforaccesstodocumentsprovidedtotheCEOabout
procurementpractices,especiallyrelatingtothepurchaseofprintercartridges,
112
the
agencyclaimedinteraliaexemptionclauses4(2)(a),6(1)and6(2)ofSchedule1asa
basisforrefusingaccesstomanyofthedocuments.
205. Inclaimingtheseclauses,theagencyeffectivelycopiedtheseclausesandtheActs
definitionofpersonalaffairs:
4Documentsaffectinglawenforcementandpublicsafety

(2) Adocumentisanexemptdocumentifitcontainsmatterthedisclosureofwhich
(a) couldreasonablybeexpected
(i) toprejudicetheinvestigationofanycontraventionorpossiblecontravention
ofthelaw(includinganyrevenuelaw)whethergenerallyorinaparticular
case;or
(ii) toenabletheexistenceoridentityofanyconfidentialsourceofinformation,
inrelationtotheenforcementoradministrationofthelaw,tobeascertained;
or
(iii) toprejudicetheeffectivenessofanylawfulmethodorprocedurefor
preventing,detecting,investigatingordealingwithanycontraventionor
possiblecontraventionofthelaw(includinganyrevenuelaw);or
(iv) toprejudicethemaintenanceorenforcementofanylawfulmethodor
procedureforprotectingpublicsafety;or
(v) toendangerthesecurityofanybuilding,structureorvehicle;or
(vi) toprejudiceanysystemorprocedurefortheprotectionofpersonsor
property;and
(b) would,onbalance,becontrarytothepublicinterest.
6Documentsaffectingpersonalaffairs
wouldinvolvetheunreasonabledisclosureofinformationconcerningthepersonal
affairsofanyperson(livingordead).
(2) Adocumentisanexemptdocumentifitcontainsallegationsorsuggestionsof
criminalorotherimproperconductonthepartofaperson(livingordead)thetruth
ofwhichhasnotbeenestablishedbyjudicialprocessandthedisclosureofwhich
wouldbeunreasonable.
personalaffairsofapersonincludesthatperson's
(a) financialaffairs;
(b) criminalrecords;

112
Agencyreference:BRIEFC/13/48.

59
(c) maritalorotherpersonalrelationships;
(d) employmentrecords;
(e) personalqualitiesorattributes,
butdoesnotincludethepersonalaffairsofabodycorporate
206. Theagencyfailedtocomplywithsection23(2)(f),inthatit:
failedtostatewhichofthesix(6)sub-paragraphsofclause4(2)(a)wererelevant.
Althoughitwaslikelythattheagencywasclaimingclause4(2)(a)(i),theagency
failedtoshow:
- whichlawwouldbecontravenedandhow
- thenatureoftheprejudicethatwouldbeoccasionedthroughdisclosure
- howtheexpectationoftheprejudicewasreasonable
failedtoshowhowtheinformationinthedocumentwascapturedbythedefinition
ofpersonalaffairs,andwhichparagraphofthedefinition(ifany)wasapplicable
failedtoshowhowdisclosureoftheinformationwouldbeanunreasonable
disclosureofinformationconcerningapersonspersonalaffairs
failedtoaddresswhydisclosureoftheallegationsorsuggestionsofcriminalor
otherimproperconductonthepartofapersonwouldbeunreasonable.
207. Thedeterminationwasalsomisconceivedinthatitwronglyfoundthatinformation
whichhadbeenidentifiedasbeingoutsidethescopeoftheFOIrequestwasexempt
underclause6(1).
DECD
208. Inresponsetoarequestseekingdocumentsaboutmeetingsconcerningtheapplicant
betweenhighschoolstaffandotherdepartmentalemployees,theagencys
determinationrefusedaccesstosomeofthedocumentsonthebasisofthepersonal
affairsexemptionsinclauses6(1)and6(3)(a):
113
6Documentsaffectingpersonalaffairs
wouldinvolvetheunreasonabledisclosureofinformationconcerningthepersonal
affairsofanyperson(livingordead).

(3a) Adocumentisanexemptdocumentifitcontainsmatter
(a) consistingofinformationconcerningapersonwhoispresentlyundertheage
of18yearsorsufferingfrommentalillness,impairmentorinfirmityor
concerningsuchaperson'sfamilyorcircumstances,orinformationofany
kindfurnishedbyapersonwhowasunderthatageorsufferingfrommental
illness,impairmentorinfirmitywhentheinformationwasfurnished;and
(b) thedisclosureofwhichwouldbeunreasonablehavingregardtotheneedto
protectthatperson'swelfare.
209. Theagencyfailedtocomplywithsection23(2)(f),asit:
simplyrecitedandreliedonthewordingoftheclauseinitsdetermination
failedtoshowhowtheinformationwhichwasbeingdeniedwascaughtbythe
definitionofpersonalaffairsintheAct
114
failedtoaddresswhydisclosureoftheinformationwasunreasonable

113
Agencyreference:DECD12/2243(IhavenotincludedconsiderationofthedeterminationsofFamiliesSA).
114

60
failedtoaddresswhydisclosureoftheinformationconcerningapersonunderthe
ageof18yearswouldbeunreasonable.

DCS
210. Inresponsetoaprisonersapplicationforaccesstohiscasenotesduringacertain
periodoftime,theagencydeterminedinparttorefuseaccesstosomeofthe
documentsonthebasisofexemptionclauses6(1)and13(1)(a).
115
Clause6(1)isset
outabove.Clause13(1)(a)provides:
13Documentscontainingconfidentialmaterial
(1) Adocumentisanexemptdocument
(a) ifitcontainsmatterthedisclosureofwhichwouldfoundanactionfor
breachofconfidence
211. Initsdetermination,theagencyfailedtocomplywithsection23(2)(f)insofarasit:
merelyquotedclause6(1)
failedtoindicatewhatkindofpersonalaffairswereinissueinthedocuments,
andhowtheseaffairswerecaughtbythedefinitionintheAct
failedtoshowwhydisclosurewouldbeunreasonablewithinthemeaningof
clause6(1).Instead,theagencypurportedtodeterminethat:
[c]lause6(1)appliestothepersonalinformationofpersonswhomaybereferredto
indepartmentdocuments,andwhoareunawarethattheirprivateaffairsstand
subjecttoexposurebyaclaimforaccessundertheAct.
simplyquotedclause13(1)(a)anddeterminedoninternalreviewthattheclause
referstoconfidentialinformationheldbythedepartment.Releaseofthis
informationunderaclaimofaccessundertheFOIActwouldbeabreachof
confidence
failedtoappreciatethatthewordsmatterwhichwouldfoundanactionforbreach
ofconfidencehavealegalmeaning;andthatinordertoshowthatthisexemption
applies,anagencymustdemonstratethat:
- theinformationinthedocumentsmustbeabletobeidentifiedwithspecificity,
andnotmerelyinglobalterms
- theinformationhasthenecessaryqualityofconfidence(andisnotfor
example,commonorpublicknowledge)
- theinformationwasreceivedinsuchcircumstancesastoimportandobligation
ofconfidence,and
- thereisactualorthreatenedmisuseoftheinformation.
116
Theagencyfailedtoshowthatithadconsideredthesefactorsinapplyingthe
exemption.
PIRSA
212. OneapplicationsoughtaccesstocopiesofcorrespondencebetweentheAuditor-
GeneralandtheChiefExecutiveoftheagencyoveraperiodoftime.
117
Theagencys
determinationinpartrefusedaccesstosomeofthedocumentsonthebasisof
exemptionclauses9(1)and16(1)(a)(i)and(b).Clauses9(1)andclause16(1)(a)(i)and
(b)provide:

115
Agencyreference:CEN/13/0074.
116
SeetheSADistrictCourtdecisioninEkatonCorporationPtyLtdvChapman&DepartmentofHealth(2010)273LSJS453,
citingGummowJ,asamemberoftheFederalCourt,inCorrsPaveyWhiting&ByrnevCollectorofCustoms(Vic)(1987)74
ALR428,437.
117
Agencyreference:CORPF2013/000006.

61
9Internalworkingdocuments
(1) Adocumentisanexemptdocumentifitcontainsmatter
(a) thatrelatesto
(i) anyopinion,adviceorrecommendationthathasbeenobtained,
preparedorrecorded;or
(ii) anyconsultationordeliberationthathastakenplace,inthecourseof,
orforthepurposeof,thedecision-makingfunctionsofthe
Government,aMinisteroranagency;and
(b) thedisclosureofwhichwould,onbalance,becontrarytothepublicinterest.
16Documentsconcerningoperationsofagencies
(1) Adocumentisanexemptdocumentifitcontainsmatterthedisclosureof
which
(i) toprejudicetheeffectivenessofanymethodorprocedurefor
theconductoftests,examinationsorauditsbyanagency;or
;and
213. Initsdetermination,theagencysetouttheclauses;however,theagency:
failedtoshowhowthedocumentsrelatedtothedecisionmakingprocessofthe
Government,aMinisteroranagencyunderclause9(1)(a)
althoughrequiredbyclause16(1)(a)(i),failedtoaddress:
- themethodorprocedurefortheconductoftests,examinationoraudits
whichwascaughtbysub-paragraph(i)
- whichagencystests,examinationorauditswereinquestion.Itappears
thatthedeterminationwasconcernedabouttheAuditor-Generalstests,
examinationsandaudits.However,theAuditor-Generalisnotanagency
undertheFOIAct,asrequiredbysub-paragraph(i)
118
- thenatureoftheprejudicethatwouldbeoccasionedthroughdisclosure
- thereasonableexpectationoftheprejudice.
DTF
214. Uponreceiptofarequestfordocumentsindicatinganestimateofincreasedcosts
associatedwiththeintroductionoftwopartdaypublicholidaysonChristmasEveand
NewYearsEve,theagencydeterminedinteraliathatclause14andclause9(1)
applied.
119
Clause9(1)issetoutabove;andclause14provides:
14DocumentsaffectingtheeconomyoftheState
Adocumentisanexemptdocumentifitcontainsmatterthedisclosureofwhich
(i) tohaveasubstantialadverseeffectontheabilityoftheGovernmentoran
agencytomanagetheeconomy,oranyaspectoftheeconomy,oftheState;
or

118
TheAuditor-GeneralisanexemptagencyunderSchedule2totheAct.Thedefinitionofagencyinsection4oftheActis
expressednottoincludeanexemptagency.
119
Agencyreference:T&F12/0429;TFA168769.

62
(ii) toexposeanypersonorclassofpersonstoanunfairadvantageor
disadvantageasaresultoftheprematuredisclosureofinformation
concerninganyproposedactionorinactionoftheParliament,the
Governmentoranagencyinthecourseof,orforthepurposeof,managing
theeconomyoftheState;and
215. Inrelationtoclause14,althoughtheagencyendeavouredtoaddresssub-clause(b),
theagencyfailedtoaddresssub-clause(a):
toshowwhetherparagraphs(i)or(ii)orboth,wererelevant
if(i),howreleaseofthedocumentscouldbeexpectedtohaveasubstantial
adverseeffect(notjustanadverseeffect)andwhichaspectoftheeconomywas
relevant
thereasonablebasisforexpectingasubstantialadverseeffect
if(ii),thepersonorclassofpersonsinquestion
whatkindofadvantageordisadvantagewouldincurasaresultofdisclosure
howdisclosureofthedocumentswouldbepremature
whatproposedactionorinactionoftheparliament,thegovernmentoranagency
wasinquestion.
216. Initsclaimofclause9(1),againtheagencyendeavouredtoaddressparagraph(b);but
failedtoshowhowthedocumentswerecapturedbyparagraph(a).
DCSI
217. ArequestforaccesstoallboardminutesandagendaoftheSAAffordableHousing
TrustBoardoverthepasttwoyearswasrefusedinpartbytheagencyunderclause
7(1)(c).
120
Theagencysetouttheclause:
7Documentsaffectingbusinessaffairs
(1) Adocumentisanexemptdocument
(a) ifitcontainsmatterthedisclosureofwhichwoulddisclosetradesecretsof
anyagencyoranyotherperson;or
(b) ifitcontainsmatter
(i) consistingofinformation(otherthantradesecrets)thathasa
commercialvaluetoanyagencyoranyotherperson;and
(ii) thedisclosureofwhich
(A) couldreasonablybeexpectedtodestroyordiminishthe
commercialvalueoftheinformation;and
(B) would,onbalance,becontrarytothepublicinterest;or
(c) ifitcontainsmatter
(i) consistingofinformation(otherthantradesecretsorinformation
referredtoinparagraph(b))concerningthebusiness,
professional,commercialorfinancialaffairsofanyagencyor
anyotherperson;and
(ii) thedisclosureofwhich
(A) couldreasonablybeexpectedtohaveanadverseeffecton
thoseaffairsortoprejudicethefuturesupplyofsuch
informationtotheGovernmentortoanagency;and

120
Agencyreference:HSA95149.

63
(B) would,onbalance,becontrarytothepublicinterest.
218. Whiletheagencysdeterminationattemptedtoaddressthepublicinterestaspectofthe
exemption,itdidnotaddresshowHousingSAsbusinessandfinancialaffairswouldbe
adverselyaffectediftheinformationwasdisclosed.Theagencyinsteadpurportedto
determinethat:
Itisproposedtoexemptthistypeofinformationfromreleaseintheinterestsofensuring
thereisnonegativeimpactonaHousingSAsoperationsincludingwheretheinformation
relatestospecificprojectsinvolvingthirdpartiesorbudgetaryandfundingconsiderations.
219. Thisdeterminationwasmisconceived,andfailedtounderstandwhatisrequiredin
claimingtheexemption.
DHA
220. AnapplicationrequestedcopiesofdocumentsfromtheCEOorCEOsrelatingto
paymentofentertainmentexpensesandcreditcardtransactionsoveraperiodof
time.
121
Theagencydeterminedtorefuseaccessinparttothedocumentsonthebasis
ofthepersonalaffairsandbusinessaffairsexemptionsunderclause6(1)andclause
7(1)(c)(assetoutabove).
221. Whiletheagencysdeterminationsetouttheseclauses,itfailedtosatisfysection
23(2)(f)inthatit:
simplyparaphrasedclause6(1)
paraphrasedclause7(1)(c)(i),simplyclaimingbusinessorprofessionalaffairsof
theagencyorotherpersons
paraphrasedthefirstlimbofclause7(1)(c)(ii)(A)
incorrectlyparaphrasedthesecondlimbofclause7(1)(c)(ii)(A)claimingthatfull
disclosure...couldreasonablybeexpected...toprejudicethefuturesupply[sic]
failedtoaddressclause7(1)(c)(ii)(B).
DMITRE
222. Anapplicationrequestingaccesstocorrespondenceforacertaindurationbetweenthe
MinisterandthedepartmentregardingtheNationalMedicalDevicesPartnering
Programwasrefusedinpartonthebasisofclause17(c):
122
17Documentssubjecttocontemptetc
Adocumentisanexemptdocumentifitcontainsmatterthepublicdisclosureofwhich
would,butforanyimmunityoftheCrown
(c) infringetheprivilegeofParliament.

223. Initsdetermination,theagencysetouttheclause,butdidnomore.Itfailedtoshow
howthedocumentsweresubjecttoparliamentaryprivilege.Furthermore,the
documentsweresimplycalledbriefingsinthescheduleattachedtothedetermination,
withnootheridentifyingfeaturestoconnectthedocumentstoanyproceedingsofthe
parliament.

121
Agencyreference:FOI2012-00159.
122
Agencyreference:2012/00501.

64
AGD
224. Theagencydeterminedtorefuseinpart,anapplicationseekingcopiesofrecords
concerningafireintheSouthEastandanyconsequentdisciplinaryactionthatwas
taken.
123
Thedeterminationclaimedclause6(2)(assetoutabove),butmerelysetout
theclauseinthedeterminationnotice.Nofurtherinformationorreasonsforclaiming
theclausewereprovided,andthereforeitfailedtosatisfysection23(2)(f).
DEWNR
225. TheagencyrefusedarequestseekingaccesstoacopyofareportintotheAdelaide
GaolPreservationSociety.
124
Theagencysdeterminationclaimedclauses6(1),
16(1)(a)(iii)and(b),clause7(1)(c)andclause10(1)(legalprofessionalprivilege)over
theentiredocument.Clause6(1)and7(1)(c)aresetoutabove.Clause16(1)(a)(iii)and
(b),andclause10(1)provide:
16Documentsconcerningoperationsofagencies
(1) Adocumentisanexemptdocumentifitcontainsmatterthedisclosureof
which

(iii) tohaveasubstantialadverseeffectonthemanagementor
assessmentbyanagencyoftheagency'spersonnel;or
;and
10Documentssubjecttolegalprofessionalprivilege
(1) Adocumentisanexemptdocumentifitcontainsmatterthatwouldbe
privilegedfromproductioninlegalproceedingsonthegroundoflegal
professionalprivilege.
(2) Adocumentisnotanexemptdocumentbyvirtueofthisclausemerely
becauseitcontainsmatterthatappearsinanagency'spolicydocument.
226. Theagencysetouttheclausesinitsnoticeofdetermination;however:
inrelationtoclause6(1),failedtoshowhowthedocumentinvolvedthepersonal
affairsofindividualsanddidnotaddressthedefinitionoftheterminsection4of
theAct
inrespectofclause16(1)(a)(iii)and(b),failedtoaddresshowreleaseofthe
documentcouldbeexpectedtohaveasubstantialadverseeffect(notjustan
adverseeffect)andthereasonablebasisforthisexpectation.
failedtoadequatelyaddressthepublicinteresttestin(b)andshowhow,on
balance,releasewouldharmthepublicinterest
inrelationtoclause7(1)(c),itsimplyparaphrasedtheclauseandclaimedthatit
hadtak[en]intoconsiderationthenatureoftheinformationandcurrentservices
providedtothepublic
inclaimingclause10(1),failedtoapplythetestoflegalprofessionalprivilege,
andsimplydeterminedthattheprovisionoperatestoexemptcommunications
betweenanagencyandlegaladviserswherethatcommunicationwouldbe
subjecttolegalprofessionalprivilege.

123
124

65
DPC
227. InresponsetoanapplicationunderDPCCircularPC031(FreedomofInformation
releaseofCabinetdocuments)seekingaccesstoaCabinetdocumenttitled
ConstitutionalConventiondated5May2002,theagencydeterminedinparttorefuse
accessunderclause7(1)(c)(assetoutabove).
125
228. Theagencysetouttheclauseinitsdetermination;however,itfailedtosatisfysection
23(2)(f).Theagency:
simplystatedthatthedocumentcontainedcommercialinformationwhich,if
releasedcouldplacetheorganisationatadisadvantage
failedtoaddresswhyitconsideredtheinformationwascommercial
failedtoshowhow,iftheinformationwasreleased,theorganisationwouldbe
adverselyaffected
failedtoshowwhythisexpectationwasreasonable
failedtoaddressthepublicinteresttest.
DPTI
229. TheapplicationrequestedaccesstoacopyofsubmissionstotheDraftRoad
ManagementPlanforBrightonRoad.
126
Whiletheagencyreleasedmuchofthe
information,itdeletedtheremaininginformationonthebasisofclause6(1)(assetout
above).Whiletheagencyrecitedtheclauseinthedetermination,it:
failedtoshowhowthedeletedinformationrelatedtopersonalaffairsasdefined
intheAct
wronglyadvisedthattheinformationwasexemptbecauseitwaspersonal
information(thisisbroaderinmeaningthaninformationaboutapersons
personalaffairs)
failedtoshowhowdisclosureoftheinformationwouldbeunreasonable.
Insummary...
230. TheNSWOmbudsmaninhisreviewoftheFreedomofInformationAct1989(NSW)
commentedthatthelistofclausesinthatActwereunclear,opentomisuseby
agenciesand,becauseoftheirprominence,tendtooverwhelmthepurposeofthe
Act.
127
231. Basedonmybriefanalysisoftheagenciesuseofexemptionsaboveandmy
experienceasanexternalreviewauthorityundertheAct,IagreewiththeNSW
Ombudsmansview(notingalsothattheActisbasedontheNSWActandissimilarly
drafted).
232. Inmyview,thesheerlistof19clausesand50sub-clausesandparagraphsof
exemptionsintheActisliabletoencourageallbutthemostseasonedFOIofficerto
adoptapicktheexemptionapproach.
233. Onreceiptofanaccessapplication,agenciescanoftenturnfirsttoconsiderwhat
exemptionsmightfit.Evidencegiventotheauditconfirmsthis.
128
234. InotetheNSWOmbudsmanfoundsimilarlyinhisreviewoftheNSWFreedomof
InformationAct1989,wherehesaid:

125
Agencyreference:DPC13/0163.
126
127
ReportontheReviewoftheFreedomofInformationAct1989,NSWOmbudsman,February2009,p3.
128

66
Manyagenciesautomaticallyclaimanexemptionclausebecausetheycan.
129
235. Insayingtheabove,Idonotmeantocastaspersionsonthegoodfaithofagencies
FOIofficersinexercisingtheirresponsibilitiesundertheAct.Thereisnoevidence
beforetheaudittosuggestthatanyFOIofficerhasconductedthemselvesintheirrole
withoutpropriety.
Ombudsmanobservations-AnnualReports-1992-2013
236. LookingbackthroughtheOmbudsmansannualreportsfrom1992-93to2011-12,there
aretwokeythemesthatmypredecessorshaveobservedandthatIcontinuetoobserve
asanexternalreviewauthorityintheFOIprocess.
237. Thefirstisthatagenciescommonlyfailtoprovidereasonsfordenyingaccessto
documents.Theyfailtolinktheexemptionsclaimedtotheactualcontentsofthe
documents,andcanoftenmakeblanketclaimsoverthedocuments.
238. Thiswasnotedin13ofthe20OmbudsmanAnnualReportsonFOI.Inthefirst1992-93
report,theOmbudsmannotedthatitisnotsufficientforanagencytomerelylistthe
exemptionclausesbeingclaimedbyanagency.TheOmbudsmanrepeatedthis
messageinhis1993-94and1994-95reports.In1995-96,theOmbudsmannotedthat
[o]neoftheconstantfeaturesisagenciesabrogationoftheirresponsibilitiesunderthe
Acttoprovideproperreasonsfortheirdetermination.
239. Inmy2011-12report,Icommentedthat[a]genciescommonlysubmitblanketclaims
overdocuments,ratherthanassessingtheactualinformationwithinthedocuments;
andthatmostagenciesregularlyfailtoprovidedetailedsubmissionstojustifytheirFOI
determination.
240. Thesecondconsistentthemeisthatthestartingpointforagenciesshouldbethat
documentsshouldbereleased,unlessreleasewouldcauserealharm.Thisisincontrast
totheapparentpracticeoffirstturningtoexemptionsandtryingtoforcedocumentstofit
intoacategoryofexemption.Thisthemehasbeenpresentinfivereports.Thisposition
wasmoststronglyputin2002-03,withreferencetotheobjectsoftheAct:agencies
shouldalwaysturntheirmindtotheobjectsoftheActtoextendasfaraspossible,the
rightsofthepublictoobtainaccesstoinformationheldbythegovernment.
RECOMMENDATION 19
TheActshouldbeamendedto:
lessenthenumberofexemptionprovisions
providethatinformationmustbedisclosedunless,onbalance,disclosurewouldbe
countertothepublicinterest
expresslydirectagenciestoconsidertheobjectsanddiscretionsintheActbefore
applyingexemptionprovisions.
Theagenciesshouldinthemeantime,adoptapolicythat,inthecontextoftheobjectsandintent
oftheAct:
discretionsundertheActmustbeexercisedinawaythatfavoursdisclosureofrequested
documents
documentsrequestedundertheActshouldbereleased,unlessreleasewouldcausereal
harm.

129
NSWOmbudsmanReportOpeningupgovernment:ReviewoftheFreedomofInformationAct1989(NSW),February2009.

67
Composingascheduleoftherequesteddocuments
241. Toassistagenciesrespondingtorequestsintheirdeterminations,thereisapracticeof
agenciesprovidingadiscretescheduletotheapplicant,whichcanshow:
thenumberattributedbytheagencytothedocument(thisnumberismarkedon
thedocument)
adescriptionofthedocument
theauthor(andrecipientofthedocumentifrelevant)
thedocumentsexemptstatusorotherwise.
242. Thisisausefulapproachforapplicantsandagenciesalike,andissupportedbyState
Records.
130
243. However,theaudithasrevealedthatthispracticevariesconsiderablyincalibre
amongsttheagencies;andthereisadangerinagenciesusingtheschedule,ineffect,
asthedetermination.
RECOMMENDATION 20
TheActshouldprovidethatascheduleofdocumentsmustbedevelopedtoaccompanyanotice
ofdetermination.
Thescheduleshouldindicate,asaminimum:
anumberattributedtothedocument
thedateofthedocument
theauthorofthedocumentandrecipientofthedocument(whererelevant)
asubstantialdescriptionofthedocument
theexemptstatusorotherwiseofthedocument.
TheActshouldexpresslystatethatthescheduleisnotasubstituteforadetermination;andthat
whereaccesstodocumentsisrefused,section23(2)(f)mustbefollowed.
Inthemeantime,theagenciesshouldadoptthisasamatterofpolicy.
244. Inresponsetomyprovisionalreport,StateRecordsexpressedagreementwiththis
recommendation.However,DPTIandDHAobjectedtotherequirementforaschedule
toincludeasubstantialdescriptionofthedocument.

Furthercomment
Personalaffairsinformation-harmonisingwiththeInformationPrivacyPrinciples
245. FOIlegislationinvariablyintersectswithprivacyconcerns.TheobjectsoftheAct
expresslyrefertotheneedtopreserveanindividualsprivacy.Intherecentreformsin
QueenslandandtheCommonwealth,thetwojurisdictionscombinedFOIandprivacy,
andtheseareasaretheresponsibilityoftheoneInformationCommissioner.
246. InSouthAustralia,thereisnoprivacylegislation.AgenciessubjecttotheFOIActhave
differentprivacyobligations.Moststateagencies,forexample,areboundatapolicy
levelbythestategovernmentsInformationPrivacyPrinciples(IPPs).
131
However,local
governmentcouncilsanduniversitiesarenot.

130
http://www.archives.sa.gov.au/foi/foiadmin/foisampleletters.html(asat20November2013).
131
InformationPrivacyPrinciplesInstruction,16September2013,PC012.

68
247. ThereisalsoanotableincongruencebetweentheFOIActandtheIPPsandthe
meaningofprivateinformation.UndertheFOIAct,privateinformationwhichisexempt
orwhichmaybeamendedisdescribedasinformationconcerningapersonspersonal
affairs.AlthoughthedefinitionofpersonalaffairsintheActisinclusive,inmyview,it
hasanarrowermeaningthanpersonalinformation.
132
248. TheIPPsareconcernedtoprotectpersonalinformation;andtheydefinethisas
informationoranopinion,whethertrueornot,relatingtoanaturalpersonortheaffairs
ofanaturalpersonwhoseidentityisapparent,orcanreasonablybeascertained,from
theinformationoropinion.
133
Ineffect,thismeansanyinformationaboutanidentifiable
individual,unlikethemeaningofpersonalaffairsinformationintheAct.
249. Thisisconfusing;andinmyview,thereshouldbeanintegratedapproachanda
commonlegislativeunderstandingofwhatkindofprivateinformationisprotectedfrom
disclosureinthisstate.
Disclosingthenameofanapplicant
250. Myofficehasnotedthatagenciesdonottendtoconveythenameoftheapplicant
whentheyconsultwiththirdpartiesaboutreleaseofdocuments.
251. Initsguidelines,StateRecordsadvisesthatagenciesmusttakeintoconsiderationthe
IPPsbeforetheydiscloseanapplicantsidentityduringconsultation.
134
252. TheFOIActissilentontheissue.InhisAnnualReportof2002-03,mypredecessor
notedthattherewasnoobviouslegalimpedimenttoanagencyreleasingthenameof
anapplicantduringtheconsultationprocess.Hecommentedthatwhereapplicants
seekinginformationconcerningthepersonalorbusinessaffairsofathirdparty,itmight
reasonablybeconcludedthattheyhaveimpliedlyconsentedtoreleaseoftheiridentity
tothethirdparty.
135
Iagreewiththisview,butnonethelesssuggestthattheActshould
clarifythequestion.
253. InotethatinQueensland,agenciesarerequiredtoincludethenameoftheaccess
applicantintheirdisclosurelogs(whicharepubliclyavailableontheirwebsite),where
theapplicantisgivenaccesstothedocument,thedocumentdoesnotcontainpersonal
informationanddisclosureisnotprohibitedunderthelegislation.
136
254. Inmyopinion,thestartingpointshouldalwaysbethatthereisapublicinterestin
disclosingtheidentityofpartieswhoseektousepublicresources(inthiscase,to
accessinformation).

132
Seesection4FreedomofInformationAct1991.SeePriebevSAPolice[2007]SADC119(20November2007).For
discussionintheQueenslandcontext,seeStewartandDepartmentofTransport(1993)1QAR227.
133
InformationPrivacyPrinciplesInstruction,16September2013,Part1,Item3.
134
ConsultationandtheFOIActguideline,6September2011,Version2,p5.
http://www.archives.sa.gov.au/files/foi_guidelines_foiconsultation.pdf(asat11November2013).
135
AnnualReport2002-2003,SAOmbudsman,p52.
136
Seehttp://www.oic.qld.gov.au/guidelines/for-government/access-and-amendment/disclosure-logs(asat18December
2013).

69
RECOMMENDATION 21
Thereshouldbeanintegratedapproachtoprivacyconcernsandaccesstogovernment-held
informationinthisstate.
Localgovernmentanduniversitiesshouldbeboundbythesameprivacyrulesasstate
government.
ThereneedstobecongruencybetweenthemeaningofprivateinformationintheFOIActand
theInformationPrivacyPrinciples.
TheActshouldexpresslyprovideforthepublicationofFOIapplicantsnamesandthenatureof
theirapplications,intermssimilartothepracticeofpublishingapplicantsnamesindisclosure
logsundertheRighttoInformationAct2009(Qld).
255. Inresponsetomyprovisionalreport,DHA,DEWNRandDPTIobjectedtothis
recommendationonprivacygrounds.However,theyconsideredthatanMPshouldbe
requiredtodisclosetheiridentityasanapplicant.DEWNRobservedthatreleasingan
applicantsnameinthecontextofconsultationundertheAct,cancreatetension
betweentheparties.
256. Idonotsharetheseagenciesobjectionsforthereasonsabove.Inotealsothatparties
willinvariablybeidentifiedintheeventofadeterminationbeingappealedtotheDistrict
Court.

70
PART7B
JUSTIFYINGFOIDETERMINATIONSEXEMPTIONS&THEPUBLICINTEREST
Part7B-JustifyingFOIdeterminationsexemptions&thepublicinterest

71
Publicinterest
[N]otionsofthepublicinterestconstitutethebasicrationalefortheenactmentof,aswellasthe
unifyingthreadrunningthroughtheprovisionsof,theFOIAct.
137
Exemptionswithapublicinteresttest
257. Nineofthe19exemptionclausesinSchedule1totheActhaveanaddedpublic
interesttest.Thatis,theycontainanaddedrequirement(thepublicinteresttest)to
assesswhetherreleaseoftherequesteddocuments:
258. Theseclausesconcern:
lawenforcementandpublicsafety(clause4)
inter-governmentalrelations(clause5)
businessaffairs(clause7)
conductofresearch(clause8)
internalworkingdocuments(clause9)
confidentialmaterial(clause13)
theeconomyoftheState(clause14)
financialorpropertyinterestsofthestateoranagency(clause15)
operationsofagencies(clause16).
259. Beforetheseexemptionscanapply:
first,initialcriteriaintheclausemustbemet
second,thepublicinteresttestmustbemet.
260. Inalloftheseclausesexceptclause9(1),theinitialcriteriacontainaharmtestor
threshold.
138
Applicationofthepublicinteresttest
261. Section23(2)(f)(i)oftheActprovidesthatagenciesmustaddressthepublicinteresttest
inexemptionclausesintheirdeterminations:
(f) ifthedeterminationistotheeffectthataccesstoadocumentisrefused
(i) thereasonsfortherefusal,including
(A) thegroundsfortherefusalundersection20(1);and
(B) ifagroundfortherefusalisthatthedocumentisanexempt
documenttheparticularprovisionofSchedule1byvirtueof
whichthedocumentisanexemptdocumentand,ifunderthe
provisiondisclosureofthedocumentmust,onbalance,be
contrarytothepublicinterestinorderforthedocumenttobe
exempt,thereasonswhydisclosureofthedocumentwouldbe
contrarytothepublicinterest;and(myemphasis)
(ii) thefindingsonanymaterialquestionsoffactunderlyingthereasons
fortherefusal,togetherwithareferencetothesourcesofinformation
onwhichthosefindingsarebased;

137
ReEcclestonandDepartmentofFamilyServicesandAboriginalandIslanderAffairs(1993)1QAR60,[39].
138
IpexInformationTechnologyGroupPtyLtdvDepartmentofInformationTechnologyServicesSA(1997)192LSJS54.

72
262. TheDistrictCourtinEveringhamvDirector-GeneralofEducationsaidthatinassessing
theapplicabilityofthepublicinteresttest:
Ineachcasethedocumentsmustbeviewedinthelightofallrelevantcircumstances,
theircontentsandpurposesassessed,andthatdone,thequestionofbalancedecided.
139
263. Agenciesmustengageinapublicinterestbalancingprocessinapplyingthepublic
interesttest.TheCourthassaid:
Thisdoesnotmeanmerelyshowingthatthereissomethingadversetothepublicinterest
likelytoflowfromdisclosureofthedocument,butthatonbalancethefactorsinthepublic
interestagainstdisclosureoutweighthefactorsinfavourofdisclosure.
140
264. ThetestshouldbeinterpretedinaccordancewiththeobjectsandintentoftheFOIAct.
InEveringham,theCourtcommented:
Clearlytheachievementoftheobjectivesofthe[FOI]Actisconducivetothepublic
interest.Itisafactor-and,Ithink,afairlyweightyfactor-tobetakenintoaccountwhen
determiningwherethebalancelies.
141
Analysisofagenciesdeterminations-applicationofthepublicinteresttest
265. Manyoftheagenciesdeterminationsprovidedtotheauditdidnotcomplywiththe
requirementinsection23(2)(f)toshowthereasonsfortheirclaimthatdisclosureofthe
requesteddocumentswould,onbalancebecontrarytothepublicinterest.Further,
someoftheagenciesshowedinternalinconsistency,withthepublicinteresttestbeing
appliedinonedeterminationbutnotanother.
142
266. Theagenciesdeterminationsvariedinquality,andeither:
identifythatthedocumentsinissuemeettheinitialcriteriaoftheexemption
clause,butthenignorethepublicinteresttest
notetheharmtestintheinitialcriteriaoftheexemptionclauseastheonlypublic
interestfactoragainstdisclosure
confusethepublicinteresttestwithdisclosureofdocumentshavingtobeinthe
publicinterest
failtoaddressandbalancethepublicinterestfactorsforandagainstdisclosure
simplyreflectalackofunderstandingofthepublicinterest,andtheobjectsofthe
Act.
267. InotethataStateRecordsguidelineprovidesthat:
Satisfyingtheelementsofoneormoreexemptionclausethatcontainsapublicinterest
testmaybeanindicationthatdisclosurewouldnotbeinthepublicinterest,especially
wheretheelementsareeasilysatisfied.
143
268. Inmyview,thisguidelineisnotasclearasitcouldbe.Fortheunsuspecting,itmay
suggestthattojustifyanexemptionclausethathasapublicinteresttest,itissufficient
tofocusonlyonestablishingtheinitialcriteriaortheharmtest.StateRecords
disagreedwithmyviewinitsresponsetotheprovisionalreport.

139
EveringhamvDirector-GeneralofEducation,D2959(Unreported,DistrictCourtofSouthAustralia,JudgeBowering,13
November1992).Thecourtwasconsideringclause9(1)(b)ofSchedule1totheAct.
140
IpexInformationTechnologyGroupPtyLtdvDepartmentofInformationTechnologyServicesSA(1997)192LSJS54,70.
141
IpexInformationTechnologyGroupPtyLtdvDepartmentofInformationTechnologyServicesSA(1997)192LSJS54,70.
142
ForexampleDEWNRreference57/0662;AGDreference13/0341cf13/0060;DECDreference13/3099cfF2178.
143
StateRecordsofSouthAustralia,FOIandthePublicInterestguideline,July2011version1.2,p6.

73
269. AsimilarconceptwascritiquedinaQueenslandreviewofitsFOIlegislation,whereit
wasstatedinrelationtotheQueenslandInformationCommissionersguidelines:
Theapplicationoftheseguidelineswouldseemtoturnthepublicinterestfroma
balancingexercisetoonewherethereisapresumptionthatoncethebasicelementsof
theexemptionaresatisfied,thepublicinterestwillordinarilyfavournon-disclosure.
144
RECOMMENDATION 22
Agenciesshouldnotethelegalpositionthatmerelysatisfyingtheinitialcriteriainanexemption
clausewithapublicinteresttestundertheAct,isnotenoughtosatisfythetestthatdisclosure
270. Below,Iprovideoneexampleofadeterminationorpartofadeterminationfromeach
agencyprovidedtotheaudit,toillustratetheagenciesdifferentstruggleswith
addressingthepublicinteresttest.Therelevantexemptionclausesaresetoutinthe
previouspartofthereport.
DFEEST
271. Adeterminationclaimedclause4(2)(a)
145
whichexemptsmatterthatcouldreasonably
beexpectedtoprejudiceaninvestigationofacontraventionofthelaw,andinclause
4(2)(b)itsdisclosurewould,onbalancebecontrarytothepublicinterest.
146
Theagency
referredtotheinitialharmcriteriaundertheclauseastheonlyfactorrelevantto
determiningthepublicinterest:
Theagencyisoftheviewthattoreleasethedocumentsintothepublicdomaincould
prejudicetheinvestigationsanditwouldbecontrarytothepublicinterestifmatterswere
notproperlyinvestigated.
DECD
272. Theagencyclaimed16(1)(a)(i)inadeterminationandmerelystatedtheharm
envisagedbytheclauseastheonlypublicinterestfactor:
Accessisrefusedasitwouldbecontrarytothepublicinteresttoreleasethedocumentas
doingsowoulddiscloseinformationrelatingtothestructureandscoringinformationof
assessmenttools,thusimpedinganagencysabilitytoapplythetooleffectivelyand
wouldimpactuponthevalidityoftheresultsattainedfromitsapplication.
147
DCS
273. Inadeterminationexemptingadocumentunderclause16(1)(a)(i)and(1)(b),the
agencyclaimedonlytheharmfactorprovidedforintheclauseitselfasthepublic
interestreasonforprotectingthedocumentfromdisclosure:
Clause16isappliedincircumstanceswhenthereleaseofinformationwouldrenderthe
methodorprocedurefortheconductofanexaminationbyanagencyineffective.If
disclosed,theinformationcontainedwithinthisdocumentwouldprejudicethe
effectivenessofproceduresusedbyCorrectionalServicesstaffwhenundertakingtheir

144
TheRighttoInformation:ReviewingQueenslandsFreedomofInformationAct:ReportbytheFOIIndependentReview
Panel,June2008,p141.
145
Theexactsubclauseisnotmentioned;however,itappearstobeclause4(2)(a)(i).
146
Agencyreference:BRIEFC/13/48.
147
Agencyreference:DECD13/3099.

74
requiredfunctions.Therefore,itwould,onbalance,becontrarytothepublicinterestfor
thisdocumenttobereleased.
148
PIRSA
274. Inonedetermination,theagencyprovidedamoreadequateexampleofconsideringthe
publicinterestfactorsforandagainstdisclosureinrelationtoclause9(1):
Infavourofthepublicinterest
Meetingtheobjectsoftheactfavouringaccesstodocuments.
Theimportanceoftransparencyandopennessandtheinterestthatthepublic
hasintheeffectiveoperationofagencies.
Contrarytothepublicinterest
Theadvicecontainedwithinthereporthasbeenpreparedbytheconsultanton
thebasisofitbeingconfidentialtoPIRSA,forthepurposesofcurrentdecision-
makingbyPIRSA.
Disclosureofsuchinformationwouldjeopardisethedecision-makingprocesses
ofGovernmentifanoptionofthisnatureforfutureconsiderationwastobe
madepublic.
Toreleasethecontentsofthereportofthematterunderconsiderationwould
provideanadvantagetointerestedthirdparties.
Afterweighinguptheabovefactors,Ihavedeterminedthatdisclosureofthedocument
149
DTF
275. Infindinginformationexemptunderclause14(withoutanydiscussiononwhetherthe
informationsatisfiestheinitialharmtest),theagencyclaimedinonedetermination:
Iconsideredthefollowingfactorsinfavourofreleaseofthesedocuments:
Thepublicsinterestingovernmentexpenditureandtheimportanceof
transparency.
Iconsideredthefollowingfactorsagainstreleaseofthesedocuments
ThedocumentscontaindetailsoffuturewageprovisioningoftheGovernment
which,ifreleased,couldjeopardisefuturewagenegotiations.
Onbalance,itismyviewthatdisclosurewouldbecontrarytothepublicinterest.
150

DCSI
276. Inexemptinginformationunderclause7(1)(c)inadetermination,theagencymadea
cleardistinctionbetweenthereasonthattheclausehadbeenappliedandthe
applicationofthepublicinteresttest:
Theexemptionsunderthisclausehavebeenappliedbecausetheexemptedmaterial
relatestoHousingSAsbusinessandfinancialaffairs.Itisproposedtoexemptthistype
ofinformationfromreleaseintheinterestsofensuringthereisnonegativeimpacton
HousingSAsoperationsincludingwheretheinformationrelatestospecificprojects
involvingthirdpartiesorbudgetaryandfundingconsiderations.
Itisacknowledgedthatthereisagenuinepublicinterestinreleasinginformationheldby
Government.Thisleadstogreatertransparencyandpublicconfidenceingovernment

148
Agencyreference:CEN/12/1655.
149
Agencyreference:CORPF2013/000107.
150
Agencyreference:T&F12/4029.

75
decisionmakingprocesses.However,itisnotinthepublicinteresttodisclosecertain
informationif,indoingso,itwouldunderminesensitivebusinessandfinancial
negotiations.Inthiscasethecompetinginterestscanbeaccommodatedbyreleasingthe
informationwiththirdpartyanddollaramountsremoved.
151
DHA
277. Inexemptinginformationpursuanttoclause7(1)(c)inonedetermination,theagency
failedtomakeanymentionofthepublicinteresttest.
152
DMITRE
278. Inadetermination,theagencyengagedinabalancingexerciseinexempting
informationpursuanttoclause9(1):
Inweighingthepublicinterest,Iweightheinterestofthepublicinknowingtheviewsof
thosewithintheGovernment,withtheinterestsoftheMinisterinbeingabletomake
decisionsinrelationtopolicyandconsultativedocumentswithoutthisadvicebeing
publiclyavailable.
Itismyviewthatinbalancingthesetwointereststhatthedetrimentwhichislikelytofall
uponthedecisionmakingprocesseswithingovernmentuponreleaseofthisinformation
wouldnotbeinthepublicinterest.
Laterinthedetermination,alsoinrelationtoclause9(1):
Inweighingupthepublicinterest,Iweighthepublics[sic]interestintheopinionamongst
Governmentconsultativeforums,withtheneedfortheMinistertoreceiveadvicefor
decisionmakingpurposes.
Itismyviewthatinbalancingthesetwointereststhatthedetrimentwhichislikelytofall
uponthedecisionmakingprocesseswithingovernmentuponthereleaseofthis
informationwouldnotbeinthepublicinterest.
153
AGD
279. Inexemptingadocumentunderclause7(1)(c)inadetermination,theagencyprovided
thefollowingassessmentofthepublicinterest:
Thepublicinterestfactorsfavouringreleaseofthismaterialincludeprovidinginformation
thatisitis[sic]ofparticularinteresttotheapplicantandmeetingtheobjectsoftheAct.
However,releasingtheexemptmaterialmaynegativelyimpactonanorganisation.I
consideritisnotinthepublicinteresttoreleasematerialwhichmaynegativelyimpacton
anorganisation.
154
DEWNR
280. Indeterminingthatdocumentswereexemptpursuanttoclause16(1)(a)(iii),theagency
mentionedonlytheharmenvisagedbytheclauseinbalancingthepublicinterest:
ThedocumentcontainsinformationthatrelatestotheoperationsofaStateGovernment
agency.Disclosureofthisdocumentcouldreasonablybeexpectedtohaveasubstantial
adverseeffectofthemanagement,orassessmentbyanagency,oftheagencys
personnel.Disclosurecouldreasonablybeexpectedtocreateareluctanceofpersonnel

151
Agencyreference:HSA95149.
152
Agencyreference:FOI2012-00159.
153
154

76
toprovideinformationtotheagencyinthefuture,impactonpersonnelmorale,createa
lossoftrustintheagency,andwouldonbalancebecontrarytothepublicinterest.
155
DPC
281. Inonedetermination,theagencyclaimedthebusinessaffairsexemptioninclause
7(1)(c),butfailedtomakeanymentionofthepublicinteresttest.
156
DPTI
282. Inadeterminationinexemptingmatterunderclause9(1),theagencystatedtherelease
oftheinformationwouldbepremature,butthensimplyclaimedunderthepublic
interesttestthatthismayaffectintergovernmentalrelations:
Inconsideringthegroundofexemptionforclause9,Iamrequiredtoconsiderthepublic
interestindisclosureornon-disclosure.
Ifthisagencyweretoreleasethisinformation,itistheviewoftheDepartmentthatthis
mayaffecttheinter-governmentalrelationsbetweentheFederalDepartmentof
InfrastructureandTransportandtheSouthAustralianDepartmentofPlanning,Transport
andinfrastructure.
157
TheHowardfactors
283. Duringexternalreview,Ihavenotedthatagenciessometimesrelyonadecisionofthe
CommonwealthAdministrativeAppealsTribunalinReHowardandtheTreasurerofthe
CommonwealthofAustraliawhentheyapplythepublicinterest.
158
Thisusuallyoccurs
withouttheagencieshavingconsideredthecontentsoftherequesteddocuments.
284. ReHowardwasdecidedin1985,earlyintheoperationoftheCommonwealthFreedom
ofInformationAct1982.Inhisdecision,DaviesJconsideredelementsofthepublic
interestrelevanttoconsideringwhetherthedisclosureofdeliberativedocumentswould
becontrarytothepublicinterest,asfollows:
(1) thehighertheofficeofthepersonsbetweenwhomthecommunicationspassand
themoresensitivetheissuesinvolvedinthecommunication,themorelikelyitwill
bethatthecommunicationshouldnotbedisclosed;
(2) disclosureofcommunicationsmadeinthecourseofthedevelopmentand
subsequentpromulgationofpolicytendsnottobeinthepublicinterest;
(3) disclosurewhichwillinhibitfranknessandcandourinfuturepre-decisional
communicationsislikelytobecontrarytothepublicinterest;
(4) disclosure,whichwillleadtoconfusionandunnecessarydebateresultingfrom
disclosureofpossibilitiesconsidered,tendsnottobeinthepublicinterest;
(5) disclosureofdocumentswhichdonotfairlydisclosethereasonsforadecision
subsequentlytakenmaybeunfairtoadecision-makerandmayprejudicethe
integrityofthedecisionmakingprocess.
159
285. ThesehavebecomeknowninFOIcirclesastheHowardfactors;andovertheyears,
theyhavebeenwronglyregardedattimesasiftheyarestatutoryfactorsin
determiningwherethepublicinterestlies.
160

155
156
Agencyreference:DPC13/0163.
157
Agencyreference:2013/06018/01.
158
ReHowardandtheTreasureriftheCommonwealthofAustralia(1985)7ALD626,634-5.
159
ReHowardandtheTreasureriftheCommonwealthofAustralia(1985)7ALD626,634-5.
160
AustralianLawReformCommissionandAdministrativeReviewCouncil,OpenGovernment:AReviewoftheFederal
FreedomofInformationAct1982,ALRC77(1995),[9.16].

77
286. DaviesJhimselfcommentedinthedecisionatthetimethat:
Astimegoesby,experiencewillbegainedoftheoperationoftheAct.Theextentto
whichdisclosureofinternalworkingdocumentsisinthepublicinterestwillmoreclearly
emerge.Presently,theremustoftenbeanelementofconjectureinadecisionastothe
publicinterest.WeightmustbegiventotheobjectoftheFOIAct.
161
(myemphasis)
RejectionoftheHowardfactors
287. InordertocounterthecontinuingrelianceontheHowardfactorsindeterminingwhere
thepublicinterestlies,anumberofjurisdictionshaveexpresslylegislated.
288. TheFreedomofInformationAct1982(Cth)wasamendedin2010.Itexpressly
prohibitstheconsiderationofanumberoftheHowardfactorsindeterminingthepublic
interest.Thefollowingfactorsmustnotbetakenintoaccount:
accesstothedocumentcouldresultinembarrassmenttothegovernment,or
causealossofconfidenceinthegovernment
accesstothedocumentcouldresultinanypersonmisinterpretingor
misunderstandingthedocument
theauthorofthedocumentwas(oris)ofhighseniorityintheagencytowhichthe
requestforaccesstothedocumentwasmade
accesstothedocumentcouldresultinconfusionorunnecessarydebate.
162
289. TheRighttoInformationAct2009(Qld)setsoutspecificfactorswhichmustnotbe
takenintoaccountindeterminingthepublicinterest,namely:
disclosureoftheinformationcouldreasonablybeexpectedtocause
embarrassmenttothegovernmentortocausealossofconfidenceinthe
government.
disclosureoftheinformationcouldreasonablybeexpectedtoresultinthe
applicantmisinterpretingormisunderstandingthedocument
thepersonwhocreatedthedocumentcontainingtheinformationwasorisofhigh
seniority.
163
290. TheGovernmentInformation(PublicAccess)Act2009(NSW)specificallyprecludes
fromconsiderationthefactthatdisclosureofinformationmight:
causeembarrassmentto,orlossofconfidenceinthegovernment
bemisinterpretedormisunderstoodbyanyperson.
164
291. TheRighttoInformationAct2009(Tas)includesthefollowingasirrelevantfactors:
theseniorityofthepersonwhoisinvolvedinpreparingthedocumentorwhois
thesubjectofthedocument
thatdisclosurewouldconfusethepublicorthatthereisapossibilitythatthe
publicmightnotreadilyunderstandanytentativequalityoftheinformation
thatdisclosurewouldcausealossofconfidenceinthegovernment
thatdisclosuremightcausetheapplicanttomisinterpretormisunderstandthe
informationcontainedinthedocumentbecauseofanomissionfromthe
documentorforanyotherreason.

161
ReHowardandtheTreasureriftheCommonwealthofAustralia(1985)7ALD626,635.
162
FreedomofInformationAct1982(Cth),section11B(4).
163
RighttoInformationAct2009(Qld),schedule4,part1.
164
GovernmentInformation(PublicAccess)Act2009(NSW),section15.

78
RECOMMENDATION 23
TheagenciesshoulddevelopapolicythatinassessingthepublicinteresttestintheirFOI
determinations,theyshouldrejecttheHowardfactorsandfocusontheactualcontentofthe
requesteddocuments.
TheActshouldbeamendedtoprovidethatthefollowingmattersareirrelevantwhenassessing
ifdisclosureofparticularinformationwould,onbalance,becontrarytothepublicinterest:
theauthorofthedocumentwasorisofhighseniority
thatdisclosurewouldconfusethepublicorthatthereisapossibilitythatthepublicmight
misinterprettheinformation
disclosureoftheinformationcouldreasonablybeexpectedtocauseembarrassmentto
thegovernmentortocauselossofconfidenceinthegovernment.

292. Inresponsetomyprovisionalreport,DPTIobjectedtothisrecommendation.It
consideredtherecommendationtobecontrarytoafullandrigorousconsiderationof
thepublicinterest.Inmyview,thisobjectionismisconceived,asassessingthepublic
interestcanonlyeverbeonthebasisofthecontentsofthedocuments.
293. StateRecordsresponsetomyprovisionalreportcommentedthatinassessingthe
publicinteresttest,theFOIguidelineFOIandthePublicInterestwasprepared
followingarequestfromSeniorManagementCouncil(SMC)andendorsedbySMC.
Agenciesshouldthereforebecomplyingwithit.Theguidelineincludesasectionon
Factorsexcludedfromconsiderationofthepublicinterest,whichrejectstheHoward
factors.
294. StateRecordssupportedtherecommendation,particularlytoincludepotentiallossof
confidenceinthegovernmentasanirrelevantfactor.
Franknessandcandour
295. Inmyexperience,itisnotuncommonforagenciestoarguethatitiscontrarytothe
publicinterestforinformationtobedisclosedonthegroundsthatreleasemayinhibit
franknessandcandouringovernmentcommunicationsandadvicebypublicservants.I
rejectthisasageneralproposition.
296. InotethatStateRecordsguidelineFOIandthePublicInterestincludes:
Maintainingfreeandfrankadvicetogovernment
WhiletheFOIActprovidesalegallyenforceablerighttoaccessinformationheldby
governmentitalsobalancesthiswiththeadverseimpactreleaseofsomedocuments
couldhaveontheconductofpublicaffairs.Thatis,itrecognisesthataccessto
documentsmayneedtoberefusedwhereitcanbedemonstratedthatfreeandfrank
expressionofopinionswillberestricted,particularlybythosewhoprovideadviceto
government.Thisadvicecanoriginatefrombothwithinandexternaltogovernment.
Considerationofthisfactorwouldusuallyrelatetodecisionmakingandpolicy
developmentathighestlevelsofgovernmentwherecandourandfreedomtoexplorea
numberofoptionsareparamounttotheproperworkingsofgovernment.Releaseof
informationshouldnotdiscouragepublicservantsfromprovidingunfetteredadviceto
Ministers.

79
Claimingthatdisclosureofcertaininformationwouldnotbeinthepublicinterestbecause
itwouldpreventfreeandfrankadvicetogovernmentmustbeconsideredonacaseby
casebasisandsupportedbyfactualevidenceoftheharmanddamageitcouldcauseto
government.
165
297. Therehasbeenconsiderablecriticismovertheyearsofthefranknessandcandour
argument.Oneacademic,forexample,pointsoutthatacceptanceoftheargument
encourages:
aculturewhichlegitimatesfearofpubliccriticism,ratherthanoneinwhichpublic
servantsareexpectedtohavethenecessaryfortitudetogivefrankadviceirrespectiveof
anypotentialcriticisms.Totheextentthattheyareaccepted,theyencourageMinisters
andpublicservantstohidebehindthenasameansofpreventingaccesstoany
informationwhichmightpotentiallyexposethemtocriticism.
166
298. DeputyPresidentForgieoftheCommonwealthAATinthecaseofMcKinnonand
SecretaryDepartmentofPrimeMinisterandCabinetfoundthatthereisadistinct
tensionbetweenclaimingthatdisclosureofadocumentmayinhibitfranknessofpublic
serviceadvice,andtheobligationsofpublicservantstocomplywiththelaw,including
therelevantpublicsectorlegislation.
167
299. Inmyview,aSouthAustralianpublicservantsfailuretoprovidefrankandcandid
advicetogovernmentwouldbecontrarytotheCodeofEthicsfortheSouthAustralian
PublicSector.
300. TheQueenslandInformationCommissionerhasalsopointedout:
Evenifsomediminutionincandourandfranknesscausedbythe
prospectofdisclosureisconceded,therealissueiswhethertheefficiency
andqualityofadeliberativeprocessistherebylikelytosuffertoanextent
whichiscontrarytothepublicinterest.Ifthediminutioninprevious
candourandfranknessmerelymeansthatunnecessarilybrusque,
colourfulorevendefamatoryremarksareremovedfromtheexpressionof
thedeliberativeprocessadvice,thepublicinterestwillnotsuffer.Advice
whichiswrittenintemperateandreasonedlanguageandprovides
justificationandsubstantiationforthepointsitseekstomakeismore
likelytobenefitthedeliberativeprocessesofgovernment.Intheabsence
ofclear,specificandcredibleevidence,Iwouldnotbepreparedtoaccept
thatthesubstanceorqualityofadvicepreparedbyprofessionalpublic
servantscouldmateriallyalterfortheworse,bythethreatofdisclosureundertheFOI
Act.
168
Thepublicinteresttestisamorphous
301. Ithasoftenbeensaidthatthepublicinterestisanamorphousconcept.Itisnotdefined
intheFOIActoranyotherstatute.Thedeterminationofwherethepublicinterestliesis
essentiallynon-justiciable,anddependsontheapplicationofasubjectiveratherthan
anascertainablecriterion.
169
Thepublicinterestisnotonehomogenousundividedconcept.Itwilloftenbemulti-
facetedandthedecision-makerwillhavetoconsiderandevaluatetherelativeweightof

165
StateRecordsofSouthAustralia,FOIandthePublicInterestguideline,July2011,version1.2,p6.
166
AssociateProfessorMoiraPatersonsubmission,p5,ReportoftheIndependentAuditintotheStateofFreeSpeechin
Australia,October2007.
167
McKinnonandSecretaryDepartmentofPrimeMinisterandCabinet[2007]AATA1969,[161].
168
ReEcclestonandDepartmentofFamilyServicesandIslanders(1993)1QAR60,[137].
169

80
thesefacetsbeforereachingafinalconclusionastowherethepublicinterestresides.
Thisultimateevaluationofthepublicinterestwillinvolveadeterminationofwhatarethe
relevantfacetsofthepublicinterestthatarecompetingandthecomparativeimportance
thatoughttobegiventothemsothat"thepublicinterest"canbeascertainedandserved.
Insomecircumstances,oneormoreconsiderationswillbeofsuchoverridingsignificance
thattheywillprevailoverallothers.Inothercircumstances,thecompetingconsiderations
willbemorefinelybalancedsothattheoutcomeisnotsoclearlypredictable.
170
302. Australiancaselawgenerallyacceptsthat[t]hepublicinterestisnottobe
circumscribed.
171
303. ThedifficultiesthatFOIofficershavewithapplyingthepublicinterestisevidentfrom
thedeterminationssubmittedtotheaudit.Onewitnesstoldtheauditthatapplyingthe
publicinteresttestis:
...alwaysadifficultareafor
staff,particularlywhenwearetalkingaboutdoyouchoose
nottouseclauseswhenyougenerallycould.That's
certainlyonefactoraroundthatis,wecouldusethis
clauseandit'slegitimateandwoulddefinitelyholdup,
buthowdoweactuallystructureandwordandputinplace
therequirementsofthatpublicinterestprocessofthe
clause?Certainlythat'snotjustanissueIfaceandmy
staffface,it'sanissuethatalotofstaffacross
governmenthaveaproblemwithbecauseit'ssogrey.
172
Shouldthepublicinterestbedefined?
304. Thedifficultiesforagenciesinascertainingthepublicinterestiswidely
acknowledged.
173
However,itisgenerallyacceptedthatlegislatorsshouldnotattempt
todefinethepublicinterestinfreedomofinformationlegislation.TheAustralianLaw
ReformCommission(ALRC)andAdministrativeReviewCouncil(ARC)haverightly
commentedthat:
Thepublicinterestwillchangeovertimeandaccordingtothecircumstancesofeach
situation.Itwouldbeimpossibletodefinethepublicinterestyetallowthenecessary
flexibility.
174
305. Inrecenttimesanumberofjurisdictionshavedealtwiththeuncertaintyofthepublic
interesttestthroughgreaterlegislativeguidance.
306. TheRighttoInformationAct2009(Qld)establishesauniformandexpressprocedure
forimplementingthepublicinteresttestindeterminingwhetheradocumentwas
exemptfromdisclosure.TheActprescribesspecificfactorswhichmustbeconsidered
indeterminingwherethepublicinterestlies.TheActsetsout19factors,whicharenot
exclusive,favouringdisclosureinthepublicinterest;
175
and32factorsfavouringnon-
disclosure.
176
Theirinclusionwasnecessitatedbytheremovalofexemptionprovisions;
andtheycovermattersnormallydealtwithbywayofexemptionprovisionsinother
freedomofinformationlegislation.

170
McKinnonvSecretary,DepartmentofTreasury[2005]FCAFC142,[12](TamberlinJ).
171
ReMurtaghandCommissionerofTaxation(1984)6ALD112,121.
172
173
SeeAustralianLawReformCommissionandAdministrativeReviewCouncil,OpenGovernment:AReviewoftheFederal
FreedomofInformationAct1982,ALRC77(1995)[8.13].
174
SeeAustralianLawReformCommissionandAdministrativeReviewCouncil,OpenGovernment:AReviewoftheFederal
175
RighttoInformationAct2009(Qld),Schedule4,Part2.
176
RighttoInformationAct2009(Qld),Schedule4,Part4.

81
307. TheFOIdecisionmakeristhenrequiredtobalancethefactorsfavouringdisclosure
againstthefactorsfavouringnon-disclosureanddecidewhether,onbalance,
disclosureoftheinformationwouldbecontrarytothepublicinterest.
308. TheGovernmentInformation(PublicAccess)Act2009(NSW)expresslystatesthat
thereisageneralpublicinterestinfavourofthedisclosureofgovernment
information.
177
AnFOIapplicantunderthatActhasalegallyenforceablerighttobe
providedwithaccesstotheinformation,unlessthereisanoverridingpublicinterest
considerationagainstdisclosure.
309. TheActsetsoutnon-exclusiveconsiderationsinfavourofthedisclosureofinformation
heldbygovernmentthatmaybetakenintoaccountforthepurposesofdetermining
whetherthereisanoverridingpublicinterestagainstdisclosure:
Thefollowingareexamplesofpublicinterestconsiderationsinfavourofdisclosureof
information:
(a) Disclosureoftheinformationcouldreasonablybeexpectedtopromoteopen
discussionofpublicaffairs,enhanceGovernmentaccountabilityorcontribute
topositiveandinformeddebateonissuesofpublicimportance.
(b) Disclosureoftheinformationcouldreasonablybeexpectedtoinformthe
publicabouttheoperationsofagenciesand,inparticular,theirpoliciesand
practicesfordealingwithmembersofthepublic.
(c) Disclosureoftheinformationcouldreasonablybeexpectedtoensure
effectiveoversightoftheexpenditureofpublicfunds.
(d) Theinformationispersonalinformationofthepersontowhomitistobe
disclosed.
(e) Disclosureoftheinformationcouldreasonablybeexpectedtorevealor
substantiatethatanagency(oramemberofanagency)hasengagedin
misconductornegligent,improperorunlawfulconduct.
178
310. TheRighttoInformationAct2009(Tas)adoptsadifferentapproachbylisting25(non-
exclusive)factorsthatmustbeconsideredwhenassessingifdisclosurewouldbe
contrarytothepublicinterest.Thefactorsaregenerallylistedasneutralwiththe
decisionmakerneedingtoassesswhethereachfactorfavoursdisclosureornot.For
example:
whetherthedisclosurewouldcontributetoorhinderdebateonamatterofpublic
interest
whetherthedisclosurewouldpromoteorhinderequityandfairtreatmentof
personsorcorporationsintheirdealingswithgovernment
whetherthedisclosurewouldpromoteorharmpublichealthorsafetyorboth
publichealthandsafety.
179
311. TheFreedomofInformationAct1982(Cth)wasamendedin2010.Theamendments
createdconditionalexemptionswherebyaccessmustbegiventoadocumentunless
accesswould,onbalance,becontrarytothepublicinterest.
180
312. Ifadeterminationismadethataconditionallyexemptdocumentshouldnotbe
disclosed,thedecisionmakermustincludethepublicinterestfactorstheytookinto
accountintheirstatementofreasonsundersection26(1)(aa)oftheAct.
313. TheCommonwealthActdoesnotlistanyfactorsweighingagainstdisclosureandsets
outfourfactorsfavouringdisclosurethatmustbeconsideredifrelevant:

177
GovernmentInformation(PublicAccess)Act2009(NSW),section12(1).
178
GovernmentInformation(PublicAccess)Act2009(NSW),section12(2).
179
RighttoInformationAct2009(Tas),Schedule1.
180
FreedomofInformationAct1982(Cth),section11A(5).

82
promotetheobjectsoftheAct
informdebateonamatterofpublicimportance
promoteeffectiveoversightofpublicexpenditure
allowapersontoaccesshisorherpersonalinformation.
181
314. GiventhedifficultiesexperiencedbyFOIofficersinconsideringandapplyingthepublic
interesttestintheirexemptionclaims,itwouldbehelpfuliftheActif,like
CommonwealthandinterstateFOIlegislation,gaveexpressguidanceonwhatfactors
shouldandshouldnotbetakenintoaccountinassessingthepublicinterest.
RECOMMENDATION 24
FollowingCommonwealthandinterstateFOIlegislation,theActshouldgiveexpressguidance
onwhatfactorsshouldandshouldnotbetakenintoaccountindeterminingwhetherdisclosure
ofdocumentswould,onbalance,becontrarytothepublicinterest.

181
FreedomofInformationAct1982(Cth),section11B(3).

83
PART8
MINISTERIALNOTING
Part8-Ministerialnoting

84
AgenciesobligationstoinformtheirMinistersofimportantissues
315. InhisReportoftheIndependentEducationInquiry,BruceDebelleAOQCrecently
wroteoftheroleofagovernmentagencytokeeparesponsibleministerinformedof
relevantissues:
Onemostimportantobligationofthechiefexecutiveandthedepartmentistokeeptheir
Ministerfullyinformedofallmattersthatconcernthedepartmentandareofpolitical
interestinthebroadestsenseofthewordpolitical.Thechiefexecutiveandtheofficersof
thedepartmentshouldbeguidedbytheprincipleofnosurprises.Theyshouldinformthe
MinisterpromptlyofmattersofsignificancewithintheresponsibilityoftheMinisters
portfolio,particularlywherethosemattersmaybecontroversialormaybecomethe
subjectofpoliticaldebate.
182
316. ThereisnorequirementintheFOIActthatagenciesadvisetheirMinistersinrelationto
FOIapplicationsordeterminations.However,evidencegatheredthroughtheaudit
demonstratesawidespreadpracticeofagencies:
notifyingtheirMinisterswhenanFOIapplicationisreceived,and/or
providingacopyofthedocumentsandadraftdeterminationforapproval,priorto
finalisation,or
providingacopyofthedocumentsandafinaliseddetermination.
317. WhilstitisappropriateforagenciestokeeptheirMinisterinformedofsensitivematters,
thepracticeofministerialnotingcanresultinpoliticalinterference,ortheperception
ofpoliticalinterference,intheFOIprocess.TheActprovidesamechanismfor
transparencyandaccountabilityofgovernment;andanyperceptionofpolitical
interferenceinthedecisionmakingmayaffectpublicconfidenceintheprocess.
AdvisingMinistersofFOIapplicationsanddeterminations
318. Oftheauditedagencies,10advisedthattheynotifytheirMinisterofFOIapplications:
sevenagencieshaveadocumentedpolicyaboutnotifyingtheirMinisterof
applications(DFEEST,DECD,DTF,DHA,AGD,DEWNR,DPC)
threeagenciesdonothaveadocumentedpolicy,butnonethelesshavea
departmentalpracticeofnotifyingtheirMinisterofapplications(PIRSA,DCSI,
DPTI)
twoagenciesdonotinformtheirMinistersofFOIapplicationswhentheyare
received(DCS,DMITRE).
319. AlloftheauditedagenciesnotifytheirMinisterofFOIdeterminationspriortothe
determinationsbeingsentouttoapplicants:
183
nineagencieshaveadocumentedpolicyorprocedure(DFEEST,DECD,DTF,
DCSI,DHA,AGD,DEWNR,DPC,DPTI)
threeagenciesdonothaveadocumentedpolicybutdohavesuchapractice
(DCS,PIRSA,DMITRE).
320. Oftheauditedagencies:
fiveallow1-3days(DFEEST,DECD,DCS,DCSI,AGD)forministerialnoting
threeallow4-7days(DTF,DHA,DPC)
fourallownosetnumberofdays,andtheywaittohearbackfromtheirMinisteror
ministerialstaffpriortosendingoutthenoticeofthedeterminationtothe
applicant(PIRSA,DMITRE,DEWNR,DPTI).

182
ReportoftheIndependentEducationInquirybyBruceMDebelleAOQC,p125[375].
183
DCSIindicatedthatnonotificationisprovidedtotheMinisterinthecaseofclientrelatedFOIdeterminations.

85
AMinisterspowertodirecttheiragencysdetermination
321. Ihavepreviouslyreferredtomyinterpretationofsection29(6)oftheActinPart5ofthe
report,andmyviewthataMinisterhasthepowertodirectthatadeterminationbe
madeinresponsetotheiragencysreceiptofanaccessapplication.Ihavealsonoted
thatmyviewappearstodifferfromStateRecordsProcessingFOIApplications
guideline,whichsaysthatnodirectioncanbegiventoanAccreditedFOIOfficer(or
acceptedbytheAccreditedFOIOfficer)inrelationtotheconductoftheapplication.
184
InotethatStateRecordspublicationofWhatisanAccreditedFOIOfficeralsosays
thattheFOIActrequiresaccreditedFOIOfficerstomakeFOIdeterminations
independentlyandfreefromanyinfluence.
185
322. Inresponsetotheprovisionalreport,theActingDirectorofStateRecordscommented
thattheintentbehindthestatementintheProcessingFOIApplicationsguidelinethat
nodirectioncanbegivenbyMinistersoracceptedbyaccreditedFOIofficersisto
protectagainstimproperinterferenceordictationbyMinistersratherthanthetypeof
directionreferredtoinsection29(6).Further,hecommented:
TheCSOhasadvisedthatthedirectionreferredtoinsection29(6)specificallyrefersto
thesituationwheretheprincipalofficermakesthedeterminationanddirectsapersonto
draftthenoticeofdeterminationandsignit,ineffect,astheprincipalofficersagent.It
shouldnotbeinterpretedasdictation,interferenceorfetteringofdiscretionarypowers.
Iwillgiveconsiderationtohowourguidelinescanberewordedtomakeitclearthatthe
directionreferredtoinsection29(6)islawfulandshouldnotbeinterpretedas
authorisingdictationbytheprincipalofficerorminister.
Generallyspeaking,IstillconsideritimportantthatStateRecordsguidelinessupport
decisionmakingbyaccreditedFOIofficers,onbehalfofagencies,thatisfreefrom
improperinfluenceandpressurefrominsideoroutsidetheagency.StateRecordswill
continuetoadviseaccreditedFOIofficers,thatarenotprincipalofficers,thatiftheyare
beingpressuredtomakeadeterminationtheydonotagreewith,theyshouldaskthe
principalofficertomakethedetermination,therebyinvokingsection29(6).Thisis
importantbecausealthoughalldeterminationsaretakentohavebeenmadebythe
agencypursuanttosection49,theprotectionsfromlegalliabilityintheFOIActare
dependentupontheindividualpersonmakingthedeterminationhonestlybelievingthat
theActpermitsorrequiresthedeterminationtobemade.Thisisconsistentwith
Recommendation26.
186
323. Inotethatthispublicationalsosaysthat[t]hedesignationofanaccreditedFOIOfficer
shouldbeviewedasaformaldelegationofauthority.
187
Inmyopinionthisisdoubtful.
TheActprovidesthatanaccreditedFOIofficerisonewho,havingcompletedtraining,
hasbeendesignatedbytheprincipalofficeroftheagencyasanaccreditedFOIofficer
(section4).Adesignationisnotadelegation.TheActprovidesthatanapplicationfor
accesswillbedealtwithonbehalfofanagencybyanaccreditedFOIofficer.
188
The
powerthatanaccreditedofficerisexercisingindealingwithanaccessapplicationisan
originalpowergranteddirectlyundertheAct.
324. TheActingDirectorofStateRecordsadvisedinresponsetotheprovisionalreportthat
theintentofthissentenceistoensurethatwhenanagencyexperiencesadministrative
change,theagencyreviewdesignationsastheywoulddelegations.Considerationwill
begiventoclarifyingthisintheinformationsheetWhatisanAccreditedFOIOfficer.
189

184
StateRecordsofSouthAustralia,ProcessingFOIApplicationsguideline,January2013,version12,p16.
185
StateRecordsofSouthAustralia,WhatisanAccreditedFOIOfficer,14June2011,version4,p3.
186
187
StateRecordsofSouthAustralia,WhatisanAccreditedFOIOfficer,14June2011,version4,p4.
188
189
ResponsefromStateRecordsofSouthAustraliatoOmbudsmandated12February2014.

86
325. InotethatonlyCommonwealthandVictorianFOIlegislationhaveasimilarprovisionto
section29(6)oftheAct.
190
OtherinterstateFOIlegislationinQueensland,NSWand
Tasmaniaisconcernedtoensuretheindependenceofagencydecisionmakers,and
thattheybefreefrominappropriateinfluence.
Evidenceofministerialinfluence
326. EvidencegiventotheauditsuggeststhatsomeinfluenceisbroughttobearonFOI
decisionmakersbyagenciesMinistersoffice.Onewitnessinformedtheauditthat
ministerialstaffinvariablycontactmorejuniorFOIstaffwhenthereareconcernsabout
adetermination,intheministerialnotingphase:
Theydontringme.Theyllringtheweakest
Theytendtopickontheweakestlink,whichmeansandI
havealwayssaidtomyguysthatifanybodyisringingthem
theyneedtotalktomebecauseitsmysignatureonthe
bottom.
Theyusedtoring[me].Thentheydecidedtheywould
ringotherpeople.[FOIofficers]
haveactuallygotto(a)understandpoliticsand(b)be
comfortablewithsomebodyringingthemupinadaring
degreeofanabusiveway.
Ivehadsomevery
interestingphonecallsfrompeople,veryabusivephone
callsfrompeople.
191
327. Inresponsetobeingquestionedaboutpoliticalinterference,thiswitnessadded:
Ihaveexperiencedthatonmanyoccasionswherepeople
wanttochangemydetermination.Idon'tchangevery
often.Ihaveonoccasions.
192

328. TheauditalsoreceivedevidenceofFOIofficersbeingtreatedlessfavourably,dueto
determinationsthattheyhadmade.However,theauditdidnotreceiveevidencethat
thisiscommonpractice.Onewitnesssaid:
I'mawareofasituationwhereanFOIofficerreleased
information,inmanyrespectsagainstthetrendsofsimilar
sortsofinformationthatwererequestedacrossgovernment,
andtherewereconversationsaboutwhatshouldhappento
thatindividual,tothepointofarethey,dotheyhavea
connectiontotheopposition.
193
329. AnotherwitnessindicatedthattheyhadreceivedphonecallsfromaMinistersoffice
askingthatcertaindocumentsnotbereleased-notbecauseanexemptionapplied,but
becausethedocumentswereconsideredtobeembarrassingtothegovernment.
194
330. Awitnesssaidinrelationtoministerialinvolvement:
Therehavebeenoccasionswhereonthedaysomethingwas
thenduetobereleased,I'llgetaphonecallsaying"Hang
on,wedon'twantyoutoreleasethat"andthenthatis
thenaboutwhydon'tyouwantustoreleasethat,andthen

190
FreedomofInformationAct1982(Cth)section23(1);FreedomofInformationAct1982(Vic)section26(1).
191
192
193
194

87
we'llhaveaconversation.Normallyit'sadocumentor
it'snotthedetermination,butitwillbeadocumentina
determination.Thenwewillpull--so,wewon'trelease
it,andthenwe'llhavetheconversationaboutwhya
documentthatwesaidwaseithercouldbereleasedinfull
orcouldbereleasedinpartissomethingthattheybelieve
shouldn'tbereleasedatall
195
331. Asignificantfindingoftheauditisachangeinpracticeofagenciesfromaprocessof
providingtheirMinisterwithnoticeofthedeterminationasetnumberofdayspriorto
release,toapracticeofprovidingadraftdeterminationandthenwaitingforministerial
approvalpriortorelease.Onewitnesscommentedthatpreviously:
allyouwoulddoisgivethecopyand
thentwodaysafterithasgoneupyouwouldreleasethe
documents.Therewouldbenohagglingorgreenlight
required.Younotedthetime,twodays,itgoesoutthat
day.
It'sunfortunatelyevolvedintoaprocesswherewenow
can'treleasethedocumentsuntilwehavereceivedthe
greenlight,or"Yes,,thishasbeennoted".And
whilewethenworktotryandgookayitwastwodays,
couldwe,let'smakeitamaximumofaweektopushthis
through,itcouldevolvetofourweeksorbeyondbeforewe
getthatnoteandthatiswithus
hasslingandchasingquiteoftentogo"whereisthis?.
196
Ministersandtheirstaffeffectivelydecidethetimingofdeterminations
332. Onewitnessintheauditindicatedthatthetimetakenintheministerialnotingprocess
variesquiteconsiderably.Wecangetananswersometimeswithindaysand
sometimesitcandragformorethansixmonths:
197
certainlyasFOIofficers,wedoourabsolute
besttogetthedocumentspreparedandreadytogoouta
weekinadvanceofthe30-daytimeframetoprovidethetwo
daynotingprocessrequiredunderthegovernment'spolicy,
anditcouldstillbeamonthoverduebythetimeit'sgone
throughthehandsofpeoplethatneedtoreviewitand
mediaandtheministerandCEO'sofficeetctoactuallyget
thedocumenttotheapplicant.
Wethenhaveto,ofcourse,fieldthosecallsfromthe
applicant"Youhaveextendeditbyamonthsayingitwould
beready,nowyouareovertime.Whereisitat?"Of
course,wehavetobetheonestoprovidethatinterface
whereweactuallyknowwehavedoneitintime,wehave
donealltheworkwecandoonthatpointandweare
waitingonsomeoneelsetogiveusthegreenlighttobe
abletoreleaseit.
198
333. Twowitnessessaidthatdelaysoccurintheministerialnotingprocess,evenwhenthe
determinationisthattherearenodocumentswhichfallwithinthescopeofthe
application.
199

195
196
197
198
199
Transcriptofevidence,p11andp14.

88
334. Thispracticeplacesthedecisionofthetimingofthereleaseofadeterminationinthe
handsoftheMinistersoffice.AsIhavepreviouslysaidinPart5ofthereport,evidence
collectedintheauditsuggeststhatthisprocessnegativelyimpactsonthetimelinessof
releaseofdeterminations.
335. Further,FOIofficerscanfeelcompromisedwhentheMinistersofficedelaysinnoting
theirdetermination,andwhentheyconveynewsofthedelaytoapplicants.One
witnesssaidthattheydontspecificallytellapplicantsthatthe(draft)determinationis
withtheMinistersoffice,buttheyarecompromisedregularly:
usuallyIwouldsayitsinitsfinalstagesor
itsbeingreviewedaswespeak;somethingalongthose
lines
200

336. LeavingthedecisiontotheMinistersofficeonwhentoreleaseinformationcancreate
possibilitiesforpoliticalviewstoinfluencethetiming.Ihavecomeacrossaninstancein
anexternalreviewinwhichanagencyreleasedinformationthesubjectofanaccess
applicationtoamediaoutlet,priortoreleasingtheinformationtotheapplicant,an
OppositionMemberofParliament.
201
Evidencegiventotheauditsuggeststhatthisis
notuncommon.
202
Summaryfinding
337. Insummary,theevidenceprovidedtotheauditstronglysuggeststhatministerialor
politicalinfluenceisbroughttobearonagenciesFOIofficers,andthatFOIofficers
havebeenpressuredtochangetheirdeterminationsinparticularinstances.Ihaveno
reasontodisbelievethisevidence.
Theneedforaccountability-Ministerialinvolvementinagenciesdeterminations
338. Givenmyopinionthatsection29(6)oftheActpermitsanagencysdeterminationtobe
directedbyitsMinister,inmyview,ifthisoccurs,itshouldbeclearlystatedinthe
determination.Nodeterminationsprovidedtotheauditshowedsuchastatement;and
inmytermasOmbudsman,myofficehasneverknownofsuchaninstance.
339. Furthermore,inmyview,ifaMinisterhashadsignificantinvolvementintheiragencys
determinationoriftheagencyhastowaitforthegreenlightfromtheMinister,inthe
interestsoftransparency,Iconsiderthatthisshouldalsobeclearlystatedinthe
determination.Isuggestthisbecause,inmyview,theremaybelittledifference
betweenadirectionfromaMinistertomakeadeterminationandhavingtowaitforthe
Ministersapprovalandthegreenlightaboutadetermination.Incertaininstances,the
latterprocessmaywellamounttoaconstructivedirection.Again,myofficehasnot
seenadeterminationcouchedinsuchterms.

200
201
Ombudsmanreference:2013/00279.
202

89
RECOMMENDATION 25
Ifministerialnotingistooccur,theprocessshouldbeestablishedbyaformalwrittenpolicy,
commontoallstategovernmentagencies.
Thepolicyshould:
expresslyrecognisesection29(6)oftheAct
providethatiftheMinisterhasdirectedthattheagencysdeterminationbemadein
certainterms,theagencyshouldensurethatthisisclearlystatedinthedetermination
providethatiftheMinisterortheirstaffhashadanyinvolvementinthenotingofa
determination,thenthisfactandtheextentofthenotingshouldbestatedinthe
determination
providethattheministerialnotingprocessmustbemanagedinawaythatdoesnot
impactonstatutorytimeframes.
340. StateRecordsrespondedtothisrecommendation,advisingthattherewasatwoday
notificationpolicydirectiveofCabinetin2003.However,thiswasonlymeanttobea
headsupforministerssothattheywereawareofwhatinformationwillbereleased.
StateRecordscommentedthat:
IfithasevolvedintoatwodaynotingpolicythenStateRecordssupports
recommendation25thataformalwrittenpolicyshouldbeestablished.
203
Shouldsection29(6)remain?
341. Thelikesofsection29(6)inFOIlegislationhaveattractedmuchcriticismamongstFOI
commentators.
204
Whiletheprovisionmaybequestionablefromtheperspectiveof
administrativelawprinciplesorpoliticallyunpalatable,myprincipalconcernisthatif
thereisministerialdirectionorinfluenceinmakinganagencysdetermination,thenthe
determinationmustreflectasmuch.
342. TheeffectivenessoftheFOIActisdependenttoalargeextentonthosechargedwith
responsibilityforimplementingtheAct.TheActdoesnotcontainanyprohibitionabout
improperdirectionof,orinfluenceon,anaccreditedFOIofficerorotherFOIstaff.
343. TheimportanceofprotectingFOIdecisionmakersfromimproperinfluencehasbeen
recognisedinQueenslandandinNSWlegislation.BothoftheseActsmakeitan
offencetodirectapersonengagedintheadministrationoftheFOIlegislationtomake
adecisionwhichthepersonbelievesisnotthedecisionthatshouldbemadeunderthe
Act.
205
344. Transparencyandaccountabilityinministerialinvolvementhasalsobeenpromotedby
theQueenslandInformationCommissioner,throughissuingModelProtocolsfor
QueenslandGovernmentDepartmentsonReportingtoMinistersandSeniorExecutive
onRighttoInformationandInformationPrivacyApplications.
206

203
204
SeePeterTimmins,TimminsConsultingAustralia,OpenandShutblog-www.foi-privacy.blogspot.com,Ministersand
engagementintheFOIprocess.Postedon5March201310:01pm(asat7March2013).
205
RighttoInformationAct2009(Qld)section175;GovernmentInformation(PublicAccess)Act,2009(NSW),sections117
and118.
206
Seehttp://www.oic.qld.gov.au/about/news/oic-releases-model-protocols-on-reporting-to-ministers-and-senior-executive-on-
access-applications(asat17December2013).

90
345. TheNSWActcreatestwooffences:
117 Offenceofdirectingunlawfulaction
Aperson(the"offender")mustnot:
(a) directanofficerofanagencywhoisrequiredtomakeadecisioninrelation
toanaccessapplicationtomakeareviewabledecisionthattheoffender
knowsisnotadecisionpermittedorrequiredtobemadebythisAct,or
(b) directapersonwhoisanofficerofanagencyinvolvedinanaccess
applicationtoactinamannerthattheoffenderknowsisotherwisecontrary
totherequirementsofthisAct.
Maximumpenalty:100penaltyunits.
118 Offenceofimproperlyinfluencingdecisiononaccessapplication
Aperson(the"offender")whoinfluencesthemakingofadecisionbyanofficerof
anagencyforthepurposeofcausingtheofficertomakeareviewabledecisionthat
theoffenderknowsisnotthedecisionpermittedorrequiredtobemadebythisAct
isguiltyofanoffence.

Maximumpenalty:100penaltyunits.

RECOMMENDATION 26
TheActshouldcreateoffencesofimproperlydirectingorinfluencingadecisionordetermination
madeundertheAct.
Auniformprotocolshouldbecreatedforuseacrossallagencieswhichcodifiesthe
requirementsforaccountableandtransparentcommunicationbetweenministerialofficesand
agencyFOIofficersinrelationtoaccessapplicationsundertheAct.

91
PART9
PROMOTINGFOI
Part9-PromotingFOI

92
Informationstatements
346. Section9oftheActrequiresagenciestopublishanup-to-dateinformationstatementat
leastevery12months.Theregulationsrequirethattheinformationstatementbe
publishedineithertheagencysannualreportoronitswebsiteorboth.
207
347. Theauditresponsesindicatethat:
threeagenciespublishtheinformationstatementinboththeirannualreportand
thewebsite(PIRSA,DEWNR,DPTI)
threepublishtheinformationstatementonlyontheirwebsite(DECD,AGD,DPC)
and
sixagenciespublishedonlyintheirannualreport(DFEEST,DCS,DTF,DCSI,
DHAandDMITRE).
348. Itisnowcommonplaceforthepublictoaccessgovernmentinformationthroughthe
internet;andinmyview,agenciesshouldpublishtheirinformationstatementontheir
website.
RECOMMENDATION 27
AgenciesshouldpublishtheirFOIinformationstatementontheirwebsite.
349. Section9(2)oftheActliststhemandatoryrequirementsforaninformationstatement.
Theauditrequestedagenciestoprovideacopyoftheircurrentstatement;andacross
theagencies,Ifound:
noneoftheagenciescompliedfullywiththerequirementsofsection9(2)
somepartsofsection9(2)werenotcompliedwithbyanyagencyorveryfew
agencies
inconsistenciesbetweenagenciesintheinterpretationoftherequirementsof
section9.
350. Thefollowingtablesetsoutthenumberofagenciescomplyingwitheachofthe
requirementsinsection9(2):
Section9(2)requirementsforInformationStatements
Numberofcomplaint
agenciesattheauditdate
Descriptionofstructureandfunctionsoftheagency. 10
Descriptionofthefunctionsofboardsandcommittees
whosemeetingsorminutesareopentothepublic.
1
Descriptionofthewaysthefunctionsoftheagency
affectmembersofthepublic.
9
Descriptionofarrangementsthatexisttoenable
membersofthepublictoparticipateintheformulationof
theagency'spolicy.
9
Descriptionofthekindsofdocumentsusuallyheld. 11

207
FreedomofInformation(General)Regulations2002,regulation5.
Part9-PromotingFOI

93
Descriptionofthekindsofdocumentsavailablefor
inspection.
0
Descriptionofthekindsofdocumentsavailablefor
purchase.
1
Descriptionofthekindsofdocumentsthatareavailable
freeofcharge.
2
Descriptionofarrangementsforobtainingaccessto
documentsandtoseekamendmentofrecords
concerninghisorherpersonalaffairs.
12
Descriptionoftheproceduresoftheagencyinrelationto
thegivingofaccessandtotheamendmentofthe
agency'srecordsconcerningthepersonalaffairsofa
memberofthepublic.
9
Designationoftheofficertowhominquiriesshouldbe
made.
10
Theaddressatwhichapplicationsshouldbelodged. 12
Identificationofeachoftheagency'spolicydocuments. 1
Designationoftheofficertowhominquiriesconcerning
inspectingandpurchasingpolicydocumentsshouldbe
made.
1
Addressandtimesduringwhichpolicydocumentsmay
beinspectedandpurchased.
3
351. InMarch2013,StateRecordsconductedanassessmentoftheagenciesinformation
statements.Someagenciesinformedtheauditthattheyarecurrentlyreviewingthe
publicationandcontentoftheirstatements.
208
AretheredirectivesbytheChiefExecutive,seniormanagementortheMinistertostaffabout
theoperationorimplementationoftheAct?
352. Onlythreeagenciesrespondedintheaffirmativetotheauditsquestionabove:
209
PIRSAprovidedanundateddocumenttitledFreedomofInformation
Responsibilitiesincludingaseriesoffrequentlyaskedquestionsforagencystaff
abouttheinternalFOIprocess
DTFprovidedavolumeofdocumentsconsistingofguidelines,trainingmanuals,
PowerPointpresentationsandamemoabouttheoperationoftheFOIAct.
Further,DTFadvisedthatitalsohadunwrittendirectives:
UnwrittendirectivestoFOIteam,relatingtoexpectations.Monthlyadministrative
staffsupportmeetings,atwhichFOIisastandingagendaitem,butminutesarenot
produced.FOITeamLeaderattendsthesemeetings.
210

208
DFEEST,DPTI.
209
Auditquestion8.
210
DTFresponsetoauditquestion8.
Part9-PromotingFOI

94
353. AGDprovided14examplesofminutesfromtheChiefExecutiveandothersenior
managersabouttheoperationofFOIwithinthedepartment.Someoftheminutesrelate
tothecreationofacentralisedFOIprocessingunitin2009,whileothersremindedstaff
oftheirobligationstorespondtointernalFOIsearchrequests.Theminutesprimarily
datefrom2009-2011.
354. Thefactthatnineoftheagenciesansweredinthenegative,suggestsaculturethat
doesnotpromoteawarenessandcompliancewithFOI.
355. Inmyview,ChiefExecutivesshouldpromoteandbeseentobepromotingthe
operationoftheAct,andissueadirectivetoagencystaffabouttheneedfor
compliancewiththeobjectsandoperationoftheAct.
RECOMMENDATION 28
TheChiefExecutiveoftheagenciesshouldpromoteinformationdisclosureandissueawritten
directivetoallstaffabouttheneedforcompliancewiththeobjectsandoperationoftheFOIAct.
FacilitatingaccesstotheFOIprocess
356. TheextenttowhichtheobjectsoftheFOIActcanbefacilitatedbythegovernment
dependslargelyontheawarenessofmembersofthepublicoftheAct,andthequality
oftheinformationprovidedbyagenciesonhowtoapplyforaccesstodocuments.
357. Allagenciesintheaudit,exceptDCSmakethefollowinginformationavailableontheir
websites:
thepostaladdresstowhichFOIapplicationscanbesent
thetelephonenumberoftheFOIcontactperson
358. Further:
threeagenciesalsoprovideanemailaddresstowhichaccessapplicationsmay
besent(DECD,PIRSA,DTF)
eightagenciesprovidealinkforadownloadableFOIapplicationform(DFEEST,
DECD,PIRSA,DTF,DCSI,AGD,DEWNR,DPC)
fouragenciesprovidealinktotheAct(DECD,DHA,AGD,DEWNR)
fouragenciesprovidealinktoStateRecords(DECD,PIRSA,DTF,DEWNR)
oneagencyprovidesalinktoOmbudsmanSA(DHA)
fiveagenciesprovideinformationaboutfeesforFOIapplications(DECD,DTF,
DCSI,DMITRE,DPC)
noagenciesprovidedinformationontheirwebsiteabouttheappealrightsofa
personaggrievedbyadeterminationundertheAct.
RECOMMENDATION 29
Alloftheagenciesshould,asamatterofpolicy,provideontheirwebsite:
thepostalandelectronicaddressestowhichaccessapplicationsmaybesent
thetelephonenumberofanFOIofficer
alinktoanaccessandinternalreviewapplicationform
linkstotheFOIActandStateRecordsofSouthAustralia
detailsofexternalreviewandappealrights,andalinktoOmbudsmanSA/orthePolice
Ombudsman(whicheveristherelevantreviewauthority)andtheDistrictCourt.
Part9-PromotingFOI

95
Proactivedisclosure
359. Proactivedisclosureinvolvesagenciesmakinginformationavailabletothepublic
withoutwaitingforittoberequested,eitherthroughFOIorothermeans.Itpromotes
theadministrativereleaseofinformation,asamatterofcourse.Proactiveinformation
releasebyagenciesdemonstratesacommitmenttoopenness,accountabilityand
transparency.
360. Ihavementionedatthebeginningofthereport,recentsignificantproactivedisclosure
initiativesbythestategovernment.Theseinitiativesinclude:
theAccountableGovernmentProject
thegovernmentsICTstrategy,SAConnected
211
OpenDatadeclarationandtheOpenDataActionPlan.
361. Whilethisistimelyandcommendable,theseinitiativesshouldbeenshrinedin
legislationtofirst,harnesslegislativeforceandsecond,toensurecompliancebylocal
governmentcouncils,universitiesandotheragencieswhicharesubjecttotheFOIAct.
362. InQueensland,NSW,TasmaniaandtheCommonwealth,FOIlegislationhasbeen
reformedtoembraceapushratherthanapullmodelofinformationdisclosure,
withan
emphasison:
comprehensivepublicationschemescovering
- administrativereleaseofgovernment-heldinformation
- releaseofFOIrequestedinformationondisclosurelogsonagencieswebsites
disclosureofallinformation,unlessitwouldbecontrarytothepublicinterest
releaseofinformationinresponsetoaninformalrequestforinformation
212
aformalFOIapplicationbeingthelastresortmeansofseekingaccess.
213
RECOMMENDATION 30
Informationdisclosureinitiativesshouldbeenshrinedinlegislation,toharnessthestrengthof
legislativeforceandtocapturelocalgovernmentcouncils,universitiesandotheragencieswhich
aresubjecttotheFOIAct.
However,thisshouldnotinterferewithproperaccessbeingprovidedoutsideoftheFOIActand
otherlegislation.Prescribinginformationthatshouldbereleasedinlegislationcancreatea
cultureofriskaversionwhenprovidingaccesstoinformationthroughadministrativeschemes.
363. StateRecordssupportsthisrecommendation.

211
Seehttp://www.sa.gov.au/saconnected(asat15December2013).
212
FreedomofInformationAct1992(Qld)repealed,replacedbyRighttoInformationAct2009(Qld),commenced1July2009.
FreedomofInformationAct1989(NSW)repealed,replacedbyGovernmentInformation(PublicAccess)Act,2009
commenced1July2010.FreedomofInformationAct1991(Tas)repealed,replacedbyRighttoInformationAct,2009
commenced1July2010.FreedomofInformationAct1982(Cth),asamendedbyFreedomofInformation(Removalof
ConclusiveCertificatesandOtherMeasures)Act2009(Cth)commencedon7October2009,AustralianInformation
CommissionerAct2010(Cth)andtheFreedomofInformationAmendment(Reform)Act2010(Cth).
213
See2010NationalAdministrativeLaw,Information-foundationforadministrativejustice,PeterTimmins,Timmins
ConsultingAustralia,andtheOpenandShutblog-www.foi-privacy.blogspot.com.

96
PART10
AWAYFORWARD
Part10-Awayforward

97
FOIculturewithintheagencies
364. TheALRCinitsreportSecrecyandOpenGovernmentin2009
214
madethese
observationsaboutFOIagencyculturewithinthepublicsector:
15.54agencyculturecanpreventinformationfrombeingdisclosedinsituationswhere
disclosurewouldbelawfulandappropriate.inthecontextofFOI,therearecompelling
driversforagenciestosacrificethegoalsofopennessandaccountabilitybecauseofa
realorperceivedneedfornon-disclosure.Suchacultureofsecrecywascriticisedbythe
ALRCandtheARCinALRC77.
215
In2008,theIndependentReviewPanelexaminingthe
FreedomofInformationAct1992(Qld)discussedthetensionsininformation
management:
Inherentatanorganisationallevel,theurgencyoftheeverydayimperativesin
moderngovernmentcanpullthepublicsectorsinformationculturetowards
informationprotectionintheinterestsofissuesmanagement,attheexpenseofthe
importantbutlessurgentinformationgoalsfortransparencyingovernment.
Culturebringsamorecomplexsetting.Accesstogovernmentinformationreaches
tothecoreofpoliticalandbureaucraticinterestsandoperatesbeyondpurelylegal
considerationsanddispassionatecalculationsonthepublicinterest.
216
365. TheauditreceivedevidencefromseveralgovernmentwitnessesinvolvedinFOI,who
notedachangeinFOIcultureacrossgovernmentdepartmentsinthepastyears.They
notedthatFOIprocessinganddocumentreleasedoesnothappenaseasilyasitused
to.Onewitnesssaidthatinthepast:
...Ithinkwegave
peopleinformationorhadinformationavailableinany
numberofformsforyears.People,mediawouldringusup
andsay"I'dlikeinformationonX",andwe'dprovideitto
them.Now,whathashappenediswedon'tmoveunless
peoplehavelodgedanFOI.Ithinkthewholeconceptof
givingpeopleinformationseemstohavechannelled[sic]downan
FOIfocusandIthinkitneedstogobacktheotherway.
217
366. AnotherwitnessinformedtheauditthattheindependenceoftheFOIofficerhas
lessened.
218
367. Thesamewitnesssaidthatarelativelyquickprocessusedtooccuronreceiptofan
accessapplication.ButnowFOIofficersarehamperedfromperformingtheirrolebya
lotmoremeetingsoccurringwhereyouneedgo[sic]throughanddiscussthe
documents.Sometimes,themediaunitintheagencyalsohastobeconsulted.
219
368. Thewitnessremarkedthatthereisalsoaparanoidculturearoundpossibleadverse
mediaasaresultofdocumentdisclosure;andmediareleaseshavetobedrawnupto
accompanyanyFOIdisclosure:
It's
kindofmoreofadefensiveapproach,let'sgetallofour
paperworkinorder,let'sgetthemediareleasereadyjust
incaseitdoeshitthemedia.
220

214
AustralianLawReformCommission,SecrecyLawsinOpenGovernmentinAustralia,ALRC112(2009),[15.54].
215
FreedomofInformationAct1982,ALRC77(1995)Chapter4.
216
FreedomofInformationReviewPanelEnhancingOpenandAccountableGovernmentDiscussionPaper(2008),p9091.
217
218
219
220
Part10-Awayforward

98
369. OnewitnesswentfurthertosaythatrealunderstandingandappreciationofFOIwithin
agenciesissolackingthat:
atthe
momentFOIisathreeletteracronymthatnobodylikes.
221
FOIleadership
370. TheauditreceivedevidenceofopinionsthatChiefExecutivesarelargelydistantfrom
FOI;thattheystrugglewithit;andthatitisanannoyance.
222
Onewitnesssaid:
Ifeelthere'sabitofa[sic]attitudefromchief
executiveswhichissomethingisgoingtogowrong,the
moreinformationweputoutthereaboutwhatwearedoing
themorechancethereisofsomethingbeingshowntobe
wrongandthereforewewillhavetodosomethingtofixit
up.Ifeelasiftheyseeitasannoying.Atthesame
timewhatIdetectisit'sdifficultor--Idon'tknowif
it'sjustdifficultorifit'salackofenthusiasmfor
tryingtodosomethingaboutit.
223

371. MostwitnessesconsideredthatthereisalackofsupportforFOIfromthetopinsome
agencies;andthatseniormanagementdonotseeFOIascorebusiness.Onewitness
said:
Ithinkchiefexecutivesseeitasnottheircorebusinessand
theyseeitassomethingthatgetsintheirway.

Theyseeitasadragonresources.And,theyjustseeit
asjustsomethingthattheyhavetodo,ratherthan
somethingthattheyshouldbedoing.
224
372. Wereitotherwise,itwassuggestedbythiswitnessthattheirdepartmentwouldbe
resourcedbettertorespondtoFOIapplicationsorwouldfindbetterwaysofreleasing
information.
225
373. HowtoinculcateanFOIandpro-disclosurecultureattheChiefExecutiveleveland
withinseniormanagementisachallengewhichdemandstobemetbythegovernment.
Ihavelongheldtheviewthatperformanceappraisalforseniormanagementshould
includeadherencetoaccountabilityandtheprinciplesonwhichFOIisbased.Apart
fromremindingmanagementofanimportanttenetofpublicsectoradministration,this
approachmaywellbeonewayofofferingatangibleincentiveformanagementtotake
amoreactiveinterestinFOIandadoptsoundFOIpractices.Inotethiswasa
recommendationoftheALRC/ARCintheirreportin1995ofareviewofthe
CommonwealthFreedomofInformationAct1982.Iendorsethisapproach.
226

221
222
223
224
Transcriptofevidence,p16
225
226
FreedomofInformationAct1982,ALRC77(1995),Recommendation8.

Part10-Awayforward

99
RECOMMENDATION 31
PerformanceagreementsofChiefExecutivesandseniormanagementintheagenciesshould
containaprovisionrequiringaresponsibilitytoensureappropriatepracticesandperformancein
respectofaccesstogovernment-heldinformation,includingFOI.
Fearofdisclosure
374. Theauditreceivedevidencefromseveralwitnesses,suggestingthatthereisafear
withinagenciesofreleasinginformationoutsidetheFOIAct-duetorealorimagined
lackoflegalprotection;possibleembarrassmenttothegovernment;orsimplyan
anxietyaboutdoingthewrongthing.Ihavealreadyreferredtoevidencereceived
above.
375. InotetheintroductionintotheparliamentoftheCivilLiability(DisclosureofInformation)
AmendmentBill2013toamendtheCivilLiabilityAct1936(SA).
376. TheBillamendstheCivilLiabilityActtoprovidetheCrownwithimmunityfromcivil
liabilityinrespectofthereleasebygovernmentagenciesofinformationofaprescribed
kind,orofthepublicationofinformationincircumstancesprescribedbyregulation.
377. InhissecondreadingspeechontheBill,theAttorney-Generalnoted:
AlthoughtheFOIprocessisoftendescribedastheoptionof'lastresort'andtheobjectsof
theActclearlystateParliament'sintentionthatdisclosureshouldbefavouredovernon-
disclosure,someapplicantsreportdifficultiesinobtaininginformationtheyhave
requested,includingtimedelaysandprohibitivecosts.Governmentagencies
administeringtheFOIActreportacultureofriskaversionandareluctancetorelease
informationoutsideoftheFOIAct.
OneofthebarrierstoagenciesproactivelydisclosinginformationoutsideoftheFOIActis
thelackofprotectionfromlegalliability,meaningtheproactivepublicationofinformation
couldgiverisetoacauseofactionagainsttheCrown.
theCrownhasnogeneralimmunityfromcivilliabilityinrespectofthereleaseof
informationoutsideoftheFOIframework.
Understandably,thislackofprotectionweighsheavilyonthemindsofpublicservants
whenconsideringwhethertoreleaseinformationproactively.
227
378. TheAttorney-Generalcontinued:
Thisamendmentwillnotrequireagovernmentagencytoreleaseinformationor
documents.Rather,itwillprovidetheCrownwithadegreeoflegalprotectionwhere
informationordocumentsisorarereleasedproactively.Insodoing,thisreformisaimed
atencouraginggreaterproactivereleaseofinformationbygovernmentagencies,thereby
reducingthenumberoffreedomofinformationrequestsreceivedbygovernment
agenciesandprotectingtheGovernment,and,byextension,thetaxpayer,fromcivil
liabilityarisingfromtheproactivereleaseofinformationbygovernmentagencies.
228

227
SouthAustralia,ParliamentaryDebates,HouseofAssembly,11September2013,6803(HonJRRauMP).
228
SouthAustralia,ParliamentaryDebates,HouseofAssembly,11September2013,6803-4(HonJRRauMP).
Part10-Awayforward

100
RECOMMENDATION 32
AfterthepassingoftheamendmenttotheCivilLiabilityAct1936(SA),ChiefExecutivesinthe
agenciesshouldissueamemorandumtoallstaffexplainingtheconsequencesofthe
amendmentandtheprotectionsdescribedbytheAttorney-Generalinhissecondreading
speech.
ThememorandumshouldalsoemphasisethattheFOIprocessisalastresortoptiononly.
379. Initsresponsetothisrecommendation,StateRecordsadvisedthattheBillhadlapsed
intheparliamentasaresultofthestateelection.Itcommentedthatitdidnot,however,
supportthisapproachandbelievesthatprotectionsforproactivelydisclosing
informationisbetterprovidedthroughtheFOIActasisthecaseinotherjurisdictions.
Inadditionthereisconcernthatagencieswillonlyreleaseinformationasprescribedin
theregulationstotheCivilLiabilitiesAct..

FOIdevelopmentsinterstate
380. FOIinSouthAustraliahasnodedicatedindependentchampion,astheotherstates
andtheCommonwealthdo.
229
Inmyview,thisisasignificantshortcominginthisstate.
381. TheCommonwealthandinterstateInformationCommissionersandtheTasmanian
Ombudsmanallhavelegislatedrolesin:
issuingFOIguidelines
ensuringpublicawarenessoftheFOIlegislation
conductingFOItraining
addressingcomplaintsabouttheFOIprocess
conductingexternalreviews
monitoringandauditingagenciesFOIperformance
recommendingadministrativeandlegislativereforminFOI.
382. Thestategovernmentwoulddowelltoadoptsuchamodel.TheFOIframeworkin
SouthAustraliaisfracturedandlacksanecessarylegislativebackbone.StateRecords
roletoreportonagenciesFOIperformanceandtoissueguidelinesshouldbetheremit
ofasingleindependentoversightbodywithinvestigation,auditandrecommendatory
powerswhichshouldbecombinedwithanexternaldeterminativereviewroleof
agenciesdeterminations.
383. Ialsoconsiderthatthisindependentbodyshouldberesponsibleforoversightofthe
statesprivacypoliciesandlegislation.

229
TheCommonwealth,WesternAustralia,NorthernTerritory,Victoria,NewSouthWalesandQueenslandhavededicated
independentFOICommissioners.TheircounterpartinTasmaniaistheTasmanianOmbudsman.
Part10-Awayforward

101
RECOMMENDATION 33

Thereshouldbeanindependentoversightbodywithinvestigation,auditandrecommendatory
powersto:
issueFOIguidelines
ensurepublicawarenessofFOIlegislation
giveFOIadviceandconductFOItrainingforagencies
addresscomplaintsabouttheFOIprocess
monitorandauditagenciesFOIperformance
conductmeritsreviews(withdeterminativepowers)
recommendadministrativeandlegislativereform
reporttotheparliamentontheoperationofthelegislation.
Thisbodyshouldalsoberesponsiblefortheoversightofstateprivacypoliciesandlegislation.
384. ViewswereexpressedtotheauditbyFOIpractitionersthattheActinSouthAustralia,
comparedwithotherstatesandtheCommonwealthisoutdated.Thisviewissharedby
nationalFOIcommentators,oneofwhomrecentlyremarkedthatSouthAustraliahas
yettoembrace21stcenturyFOIthinking.
230
Thiscommentatorhasfurtherremarked:
SAstoodtooneside,alongwiththewest,fromtheFOIreformmovementof2007-2010
thatsawsignificantchangeatthenationallevelandinQueensland,NSWandTasmania.
TheSAFOIActof1991remainsasithasalwaysbeensincecommencement21years
agoandwayshortofamoderninformationaccesslawthatreflected21stcentury
expectationsandnorms.
itsthesameoldsameoldinSAlackofleadership,closedgovernmentculture,delay,
highcost,limitedresources,etc,etc,
231
385. TherecentpolicyinitiativesbythestategovernmentinSAConnected,theOpenData
DeclarationandProactivedisclosureofregularlyrequestedinformationaretimely;
anditisevidentthatthegovernmentiscommittedtofacilitatinginformationreleaseinto
thecommunity.
386. However,theresultsoftheauditindicatethatthereisadisconnectbetweenthese
policyinitiativesandhowtheFOIisbeingimplementedbygovernmentagencies.Inmy
view,moreneedstobedonetochangeagenciesculturearoundinformationdisclosure
undertheAct.
387. Further,adhocpolicydevelopmentandCabinetdirectivesareinsufficienttoachieve
meaningfulculturalandoperationalchange,astheylacklegislativeforceanddonot
bindallstateauthorities,localgovernmentanduniversities.

230
PeterTimmins,TimminsConsultingAustralia,OpenandShutblog-www.foi-privacy.blogspot.com.Postedon11August
2013(asat23October2013).
231
PeterTimmins,TimminsConsultingAustralia,OpenandShutblog-www.foi-privacy.blogspot.com.Postedon26February
2013(asat27February2013).
Appendix1-Abbreviations

102
AAT CommonwealthAdministrativeAppealsTribunal
AGD Attorney-GeneralsDepartment
ALRC AustralianLawReformCommission
ARC AustralianReviewCouncil
DCS DepartmentforCorrectionalServices
DCSI DepartmentforCommunitiesandSocialInclusion
DECD DepartmentforEducationandChildDevelopment
DENWR DepartmentofEnvironment,WaterandNaturalResources
DFEEST DepartmentofFurtherEducation,Employment,ScienceandTechnology
DHA DepartmentforHealthandAgeing
DMITRE DepartmentforManufacturing,Innovation,Trade,ResourcesandEnergy
DPC DepartmentofthePremierandCabinet
DPTI DepartmentofPlanning,TransportandInfrastructure
DTF DepartmentofTreasuryandFinance
FOIAct FreedomofInformationAct1991(SA)
FTE Fulltimeequivalent
IPPs InformationPrivacyPrinciplesInstruction(PC012)5August2013
MP MemberoftheSouthAustralianparliament
PIRSA DepartmentofPrimaryIndustriesandRegionsSA
StateRecords StateRecordsofSouthAustralia,abusinessunitwithintheDepartmentof
thePremierandCabinetwhichisresponsibleforassistingtheAttorney-
GeneralintheadministrationtheFOIAct
theAct FreedomofInformationAct1991(SA)
Appendix2-Auditquestionnaire

103

FREEDOMOFINFORMATIONinSAGOVERNMENTDEPARTMENTS
AUDITQUESTIONNAIRE
Section12oftheFreedomofInformationAct1991(SA)(theFOIAct)providesmembersof
thepublicwithalegallyenforceablerighttoaccessanagency'sdocumentsinaccordance
withtheAct.
232
Aspartofitsadministrativeimprovementrole,OmbudsmanSAisundertakinganauditof12
stategovernmentdepartmentsandtheirfulfilmentoftheirresponsibilitiesundertheFOIAct.
TheaimoftheauditistoimproveFOIunderstandingandtheFOIresponsesofthese
departments,andagenciesgenerallyacrossSouthAustralia.Theauditwillfocuson:
FOIstaffing
FOIpolicies,proceduresandtemplates
FOIsearchingfordocuments
ministerialnotingofFOIapplicationsanddeterminations
understandingFOIActobligations,andFOItraining
numberofFOIapplicationsandresponsetimes
useofFOIexemptionsindeterminations
proactivedisclosureofinformationoutsideFOI.
Theauditgroupcomprises:
Attorney-GeneralsDepartment
DepartmentforCommunitiesandSocialInclusion
DepartmentforCorrectionalServices
DepartmentforEducationandChildDevelopment
DepartmentforHealthandAgeing
DepartmentofEnvironment,WaterandNaturalResources
DepartmentofFurtherEducation,Employment,ScienceandTechnology
DepartmentforManufacturing,Innovation,Trade,ResourcesandEnergy
DepartmentofPlanning,TransportandInfrastructure
DepartmentofPrimaryIndustriesandRegionsSA
DepartmentofthePremierandCabinet
DepartmentofTreasuryandFinance
Thisdocumentcommencestheauditprocess.
Nameofdepartment:
ThedepartmentscontactpersondetailsfortheFOIaudit:
.

232
Thetermagencyisdefinedinsection4oftheFreedomofInformationAct1991.

104
PARTA: STAFFING
1. Asat30June2013,pleaseprovidedetailsofthenumberofstaffemployedbythe
department.
2. Asat30June2013,pleaseprovidedetailsofthenumberofFOIFTEstaffinthe
department.
accreditedFOIofficers
233
(includingtheFOIPrincipalOfficer)

otherdedicatedFOIstaff(notincludingaccreditedFOIofficers)
3. ListtheclassificationlevelsofeachFOIstaffmember(includingaccreditedFOIofficers
andtheFOIPrincipalOfficer).
Positiontitle
Classificationlevel
4. WhatpercentageofeachFOIstaffmemberstimeisspentonFOI?
Positiontitle
Percentageoftime
5. PleaseprovidecopiesofalldocumentsshowingthedesignationbythePrincipalOfficer
ofeachaccreditedFOIofficer.
234

233
Asdefinedinsection4oftheFreedomofInformationAct1991.

105
PARTB: FOIPOLICIESandPROCEDURES
6. DoesthedepartmenthaveitsowncurrentdocumentedpoliciesregardingFOI?
yes
no
Ifyes,pleaseprovideacopyofallofthesepolicies.
6.1 Ifnot,whynot?
7. DoesthedepartmenthaveitsowncurrentdocumentedproceduresregardingFOI?
yes
no
Ifyes,pleaseprovideacopyofalloftheseprocedures.
7.1 Ifnot,whynot?
8. Aretherecurrentwrittenorunwrittendirectives,circularsormemosissuedbytheChief
Executive,seniormanagementortheMinistertodepartmentalstaffabouttheoperation
orimplementationoftheFOIAct?
yes
no
Iftherearewrittendirectives,circularsormemos,pleaseprovideacopyofall
documents.
Ifthereareunwrittendirectives,pleaseprovidedetails.
9. Doesthedepartmentuseanytemplates(whetherforexternalorinternaluse)duringthe
FOIprocess?Eg.lettersofacknowledgement;respondingtoapplications;transferring
applications;consultationwithinterestedparties;determinations;internalrequestsfor
documents;assessingtimespentindealingwithapplications;communicationswiththe
ChiefExecutiveortheMinister?
yes
no

234
SeeFreedomofInformationAct1991,section4(1)(b)(ii).

106

Ifyes,pleaseprovideacopyofallofthesetemplates.

9.1 Ifnot,whynot?
10. Asamatterofpractice,doesthedepartmentsendalettertoacknowledge:
10.1 receiptofFOIapplications?
yes
no
10.2 receiptofapplicationsforinternalreview?
yes
no
Ifyes,pleaseprovideacopyofsuchaletterinrelationtoQuestions10.1and10.2
above.
10.3 Ifnot,whynot?
10.1
10.2

107
PARTC: FOISEARCHINGforDOCUMENTS
11. Aretherecurrentwrittenorunwrittendirectives,circularsormemosissuedbytheChief
Executiveand/orseniormanagementtoalldepartmentalstaffaboutrespondingtoFOI
internalsearchesfordocuments?
yes
no
Iftherearewrittendirectives,circularsormemos,pleaseprovidecopiesofallofthem.
(TheseshouldalsobeprovidedunderQuestion8above.)
Ifthereareunwrittendirectives,pleaseprovidedetails.
12. ArethedepartmentsproceduresforconductingFOIinternalsearchesfordocuments
documented?
yes
no
Ifyes,pleaseprovidecopiesofallofthem.(Theseshouldalsobeprovidedunder
Question7above.)
12.1 Ifnot,whynot?
13. IsthereadepartmentaltemplateforconductingFOIinternalsearchesfordocuments?
yes
no
Question9above.)
14. WhatdifficultiescommonlypresentthemselveswhenFOIstaffconductinternal
searchesfordocumentsinresponsetoaFOIapplication?
Pleasenumberinorderoffrequency(number1beingthemostfrequent).
difficultieswithrecordmanagementsystems
departmentalstafflackofunderstandingofFOIobligations
departmentalstaffdelayinresponding
other(pleasespecify)

108
15. Isseniormanagementrequiredtosignoffonthesearchesundertakenbydepartmental
staffinresponsetoaninternalsearchrequestfordocumentsfromFOIstaff?
yes
no
Pleaseprovidedetails.
16. Howdoesthedepartmentshowanapplicantthatreasonablesearcheshavebeen
conductedinresponsetotheirFOIapplication?Pleasedescribeindetail.
17. PleaseprovideacopyofthedepartmentslastFOIdetermination(initialandinternal
review)beforethedateofthisaudit(13June2013),wherethedepartmenthas
conductedsearchesbuthasnotbeenabletolocatethedocument(s)requestedinthe
FOIapplication.

109
PARTD: MINISTERIALNOTING
18. Isthereadocumenteddepartmentalpolicy,procedure,directive,circular,memoor
templateaboutnotifyingtheMinisterofFOIapplications?
yes
no
Questions6,7,8and9above.
19. IfnotoQuestion18above,istherenonethelessadepartmentalpracticeofnotifyingthe
MinisteraboutFOIapplications?
yes
no
19.1 Ifyes,pleasedescribeindetailthepracticeandthecircumstancesinwhichthe
MinisterisnotifiedofFOIapplications?
20. Isthereadocumenteddepartmentalpolicy,procedure,directive,circular,memoor
templateaboutnotifyingtheMinisterofFOIdeterminations?
yes
no
Questions6,7,8and9above.)
21. IfnotoQuestion20above,istherenonethelessadepartmentalpracticeofnotifying
theMinisteraboutFOIdeterminations?
yes
no
21.1 Ifyes,pleasedescribeindetailthepracticeandthecircumstancesinwhichthe
MinisterisnotifiedofFOIdeterminations?

110
HowmanydaysdoesthedepartmentsetasidefortheMinistersofficetobenotifiedpriortoa
noticeofdeterminationbeingsenttotheapplicant?
1-3
4-7
8-14
15-30
nosetnumberofdays.WaittoreceivetheviewsoftheMinisteror
ministerialstaffpriortosendingthenoticeofdetermination.

22. HastheMinisterorministerialstaffeverrecommendedchangingthedetermination?
yes
no
Ifyes,pleaseprovidecopiesofalldocuments(includingtheFOIapplication,
determination(initialandinternalreview),advice,internalcommunicationsand
communicationswiththeMinistersofficerelevanttothetwo(2)lastexamplesofthis,
beforethedateofthisaudit(13June2013).

111
PARTE: UNDERSTANDINGtheFOIACT
23. HowdoesthedepartmentpromotetheobjectsoftheFOIActamongststaffgenerally?
Eg.strategies,policies,CEmemos,newsletters,internalseminars.
1.
2.
3.
Pleaseprovidecopiesofalldocumentationtosupporttheanswersabove.
24. Apartfromformaltraining,howdoFOIstaffusuallyinformthemselvesabout
implementingtheprovisionsoftheFOIActinresponsetoapplications?
1.
2.
3.
25. PleasedetailtheFOItrainingthateachofthedepartmentsFOIstaffhasmostrecently
completed(includingtheFOIPrincipalOfficer).
Positiontitle Detailsoftraining
Mostrecentdate
completed

26. DoesthedepartmentrequireitsseniormanagerstocompleteFOItraining?
yes
no

112
27.1Ifso,pleasedescribethistrainingbelow.

Positiontitle Detailsoftraining
Mostrecentdate
completed

27.2 Ifnot,whynot?

113
PARTF: FOIAPPLICATIONSandRESPONSETIMES
Pleaseanswerthefollowingquestionsinrelationtotheperiodofthefinancialyear1July
2012to30June2013.
27. HowmanynewFOIapplicationsdidthedepartmentreceive?
28. HowmanyFOIapplicationswerecarriedoverfromthepreviousfinancialyear(s)?
29. Howmanyapplicationswerenotdeterminedwithinthe30daystatutorytimeframe?
235
(Excludematterswhereadeterminationwasmadeundersection14AoftheFOIActto
extendtime.)
30. Followingquestion30above,whatwerethereasonsforthedepartmentfailingto
determinetheapplicationswithinthe30daystatutorytimeframe?
waitingtoreceiveadviceordocumentsfromdifferentsectionsofthe
department
seekinglegaladvice
seekingministerialadvice
31. Howmanyinternalreviewapplicationswerenotdeterminedwithinthe14daystatutory
timeframe?
236
FollowingQuestion32above,whatwerethereasonsforthedepartmentfailingtoconduct
thereviewwithinthe14daystatutorytimeframe?

235
SeeFreedomofInformationAct1991section14(2).
236
SeeFreedomofInformationAct1991section29(5).

114
waitingtoreceiveadviceordocumentsfromdifferentsectionsofthe
department
seekinglegaladvice
seekingministerialadvice

115
PARTG: USEOFFOIEXEMPTIONS

32. Pleaseprovidecopiesofthedepartmentslastfive(5)FOIdeterminations(initialand
internalreview)beforethedateofthisaudit(13June2013),whichhaveclaimed
documentstobeexemptunderSchedule1totheFOIAct.
33. Ifnoneofthesefive(5)determinationsclaimanexemptionwhichhasapublicinterest
test,inaddition,pleaseprovideacopyofthelasttwo(2)determinations(initialand
internalreview)beforethedateofthisaudit(13June2013),thatdo.

116
PARTH: PROACTIVEDISCLOSUREOFINFORMATION
34. DescribeallofthewaysinwhichthedepartmentmadeitsmostrecentFOIInformation
Statementavailabletothepublic.Eg.onthedepartmentswebsite(providetheURL),
socialmedia(specify),AnnualReport.
1.
2.
3.
PleaseprovideacopyofthisFOIInformationStatement.
35. DescribeallofthewaysinwhichthedepartmentmakesitsFOIpoliciesand/or
proceduresavailabletothepublic.Eg.onthedepartmentswebsite(providetheURL),
socialmedia(pleasespecify).
1.
2.
3.
36. Describethewaysinwhichthedepartmentmakesitsother(nonFOI)policiesavailable
tothepublic.Eg.onthedepartmentswebsite(providetheURL),socialmedia(please
specify).
1.
2.
3.
37. Doesthedepartmenthavepoliciesand/orproceduresaboutreleasingdepartmental
informationoutsidetheFOIAct?
yes
no
Questions6and7above.)
39.1 Ifnot,whynot?

117
38. HasthedepartmenteverexerciseditsdiscretionundertheFOIActandmadea
determinationtogiveaccesstoadocument,despiteitsexemptstatusunderSchedule
1?
yes
no
39. IfyestoQuestion40above,underwhatcircumstanceshasthedepartmentexercised
itsdiscretion?
1.
2.
3.
40. Pleaseprovideacopyofthedepartmentslastdetermination(initialandinternalreview)
beforethedateofthisaudit(13June2013),showingthedepartmentsexerciseofits
discretionreferredtoinQuestion40above.
41. InrelationtoQuestion40above,doesthedepartmenthavepoliciesand/orprocedures
aboutthis?
Yes
No
Questions6and7above.)
42. DoesthedepartmenthaveinformationabouttheFOIprocess(includingtimeframes
andreviewrights)availableonitswebsite?
Yes
No
Ifyes,pleaseprovidetheURL.
43. ArethecontactdetailsofthedepartmentsFOIofficer(s)availableonthedepartments
website?
Yes

118
No
Ifyes,pleaseprovidetheURL.
44. DoesthedepartmentwishtomakeanyadditionalcommentsaboutFOI?

119
DOCUMENTCHECKLIST
Pleaseindicatebelowwhichdocumentsyouhaveenclosedinyourresponse.
Also,pleasemarkeachdocumentinthetoprightcornerwiththeQuestionNumberitrelates
to.
documentsshowingthedesignationbythePrincipalOfficerofeachaccredited
FOIofficer
237
(Question5)
departmentsFOIpolicies(Question6)
departmentsFOIprocedures(Question7)
writtendirectives,circularsormemosfromtheChiefExecutive,senior
managementand/ortheMinistertodepartmentalstaffregardingtheoperationof
theFOIAct(Question8)
departmentsFOItemplates(Question9)
copyofletterofacknowledgementuponreceiptofFOIapplication(Question
10.1)
copyofletterofacknowledgementuponreceiptofapplicationforinternalreview
(Question10.2)
directives,circularsormemosissuedbytheChiefExecutiveand/orsenior
managementtoalldepartmentalstaffaboutrespondingtoFOIinternalsearches
fordocuments(Question11)
departmentsproceduresforconductingFOIinternalsearchesfordocuments
(Question12)
departmentstemplate/sforconductingFOIinternalsearchesfordocuments
(Question13)
acopyofthedepartmentslastFOIdetermination(originalandinternalreview)
beforethedateofthisaudit(13June2013),wherethedepartmentconducted
searchesbutwasnotabletolocatethedocument(s)requestedintheFOI
application(Question17)
departmentspolicy,procedure,directive,circular,memoortemplaterelatingto
ministerialnotingofFOIapplications(Question18)
departmentspolicy,procedure,directive,circular,memoortemplaterelatingto
ministerialnotingofFOIdeterminations(Question20)
alldocuments(includingtheFOIapplication,determination(initialandinternal
review),advice,internalcommunicationsandcommunicationswiththeMinisters
office)relevanttothetwo(2)lastexamplesoftheMinisterorMinistersoffice
recommendingchangestoaFOIdetermination,beforethedateofthisaudit(13
June2013)(Question23)

237
SeeFreedomofInformationAct1991section4(1)(b)(ii).

120
alldocumentstodemonstratehowthedepartmentpromotestheobjectsofthe
FOIActamongststaffgenerally(Question24)
copiesofthedepartmentslastfive(5)FOIdeterminations(initialandinternal
review),beforethedateofthisaudit(13June2013),whichhaveclaimed
documentstobeexemptunderSchedule1totheFOIAct(Question34)
copiesofthedepartmentslasttwo(2)determinations(initialandinternalreview)
beforethedateofthisaudit(13June2013),whereanexemptionprovision
claimedbythedepartmenthasapublicinteresttest(Question35)
copyofthedepartmentsmostrecentFOIInformationStatement(Question36)
departmentspoliciesand/orproceduresaboutreleasingdepartmental
informationoutsidetheFOIAct(Question39)
acopyofthedepartmentslastdetermination,beforethedateofthisaudit(13
June2013),showingthedepartmentsexerciseofitsdiscretiontoreleasea
documentdespiteitsexemptstatusunderSchedule1(Question42)
anyotherdocumentsyoubelieveareusefultounderstandinghowFOI
applicationsaredealtwithinyourdepartment(pleaseattachandlist)
ChiefExecutive
Name.
Signature..
Date..

Audit of State Goverment Departments Implementation of The Freedom of Information Act 1991 SA

Cargado por

Información del documento

Descripción original:

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Audit of State Goverment Departments Implementation of The Freedom of Information Act 1991 SA

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Ombudsman SA

An audit of state government departments

Application Originaldetermination Internalreviewdetermination

También podría gustarte