Webster and Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation (Freedom of information)

This matter concerned an application for review by an applicant seeking access to information held by the Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation (the Respondent) under the *Freedom of Information Act 1982* (Cth) (the FOI Act). The applicant had made a broad request for all information relating to their superannuation affairs since joining the CSS/PSS, including personal information and communications with any other department, authority, person, or entity. The Respondent had made several decisions in response to this request, releasing a significant number of documents while claiming others were exempt. The applicant sought review of these decisions by the Information Commissioner, who ultimately decided not to proceed with the review, enabling the applicant to seek further review before the Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the Respondent had taken "all reasonable steps" to find documents responsive to the applicant's request, as required by section 24A of the FOI Act. This involved considering whether the steps taken by the Respondent were appropriate in the circumstances, having regard to the nature of the documents sought, the Respondent's record-keeping systems, and any limitations or changes within those systems over time. The Tribunal also had to determine if any further documents that might exist were genuinely unable to be found or did not exist.

The Tribunal considered established case law regarding the interpretation of "all reasonable steps" under section 24A, which requires a two-pronged assessment: first, whether reasonable steps were taken to find the documents, and second, whether the documents are in the agency's possession but cannot be found, or do not exist. The Respondent contended that it had taken all reasonable steps, initially limiting its searches to the applicant's TRIM file. However, in light of questions raised during the hearing, the Respondent undertook additional searches across other record systems, including Shared Drives and staff email accounts, which identified 106 further documents. The Tribunal found that these additional searches, informed by the nature of the documents, the age of the records, organisational changes, and the limitations of the Respondent's electronic record-keeping systems, were comprehensive and directed to locating the requested documents.

Accordingly, the Tribunal found that the Respondent had discharged its obligations under section 24A of the FOI Act, concluding that all reasonable steps had been undertaken to find the documents and that any further documents could not be found or did not exist. The decision under review was affirmed.