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

This matter concerned an application to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) by an applicant seeking access to documents under the *Freedom of Information Act 1982* (Cth). The applicant believed a report had been faxed by Services Australia to a court during legal proceedings, which adversely affected her position. She sought access to her court file to identify this document and alleged interference with it. Services Australia refused access, asserting that all reasonable steps had been taken to locate the document.

The AAT was required to determine whether Services Australia had taken all reasonable steps to find the document as requested by the applicant. This involved assessing the adequacy of the searches undertaken by the agency in response to the applicant's specific description of the document and the circumstances of its alleged transmission. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's belief that the document existed and had been transmitted via fax.

The Tribunal found that Services Australia had undertaken a wide range of inquiries, including searches across standard categories of material, online records, and requests to Human Resources. Evidence was presented detailing the methods by which documents were faxed, highlighting the information required for effective searches, such as sending and receiving fax numbers, dates, and times. The Tribunal accepted that the agency had made significant efforts to identify the specific document, including attempts to locate the individual named by the applicant, and had conducted comprehensive searches across multiple relevant locations and work units. Despite these efforts, the document had not been identified.

Ultimately, the Tribunal was satisfied, on the basis of the evidence, that Services Australia had taken all reasonable steps to find the document. It concluded that the document was either in the agency's possession but could not be found, or it did not exist. Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review.