Farrell; Chief Executive Officer, Services Australia and (Freedom of information)

This matter concerned an appeal from a decision of the Information Commissioner regarding a Freedom of Information (FOI) request. The applicant, Services Australia, sought to refuse access to "Final decision notices to all applicants for Australian Victim of Terrorism Overseas Payments since January 2014," arguing that processing the request would constitute a practical refusal reason due to a substantial and unreasonable diversion of its resources. The respondent, the applicant for the information, maintained that the request was specific and that the processing time estimated by Services Australia was disproportionate to the value of the information sought. The decision was made by D O'Donovan SM.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the processing of the FOI request would substantially divert the resources of Services Australia from its other operations, and if so, whether that diversion was unreasonable. This involved determining the scope of "other operations" within the agency, specifically whether the processing of other FOI requests could be included in this assessment. The court also had to consider the meaning of "substantially" in the context of resource diversion and the potential for agencies to control the release of information by choosing how it is stored or presented.

The court reasoned that the processing of FOI requests, including the specific request in question, constitutes part of an agency's operations and can be included when assessing resource diversion. It was determined that the estimated 61.25 hours required to process the request, while significant in relation to an average FOI request, was not substantial when viewed against the overall resources of Services Australia. The court found that the diversion of resources was not unreasonable, particularly given the public interest in citizens having access to information that the agency has not proactively chosen to release, thereby enhancing scrutiny of government programs. Accordingly, the decision under review was affirmed.