Case note: 'AZG' and Services Australia (Freedom of information)
29 January 2026
‘AZG’ and Services Australia (Freedom of information) [2025] AICmr 196 (8 December 2025)
This Information Commissioner (IC) review concerned whether a practical refusal reason existed in relation to a request for documents held by Services Australia relating to the Applicant.
Services Australia made several attempts to contact the Applicant to narrow the scope of the request but ultimately refused the request on the basis that the request did not satisfy the identification requirement in s 15(2)(b). The Freedom of Information Commissioner (Commissioner) instead considered that the work involved in processing the request would substantially and unreasonable divert the resources of the agency.
Background
The Applicant was a former employee of Services Australia.
On 22 June 2022, the Applicant sought access to all documents held by a division of Services Australia. On 22 July 2022, the request was deemed to have been refused.
Notwithstanding this, on 5 August 2022, Services Australia consulted with the Applicant, purportedly for the purposes of practical refusal under s 24. The scope of the request was narrowed on several occasions, including to all conversations, notes, information or opinion about the applicant.
On 12 September 2022, Services Australia purportedly refused the revised request under s 24 and paragraph 24AA(1)(b) of the FOI Act on the basis that it did not provide such information as is necessary to identify the documents.
The issues considered in the IC review were whether:
- Services Australia undertook a valid consultation process
- the revised request satisfied the identification of documents requirement, and
- the work involved in processing the request would substantially and unreasonably divert the resources of Services Australia from its other operations.
Consultation process (s 24AB)
The Commissioner noted that as a deemed refusal decision was made, the request consultation initiated by Services Australia was not valid for the purposes of s 24AB. Despite this, the Commissioner considered it was open to her to consider the steps taken by the agency and cure their failure to undertake consultations during the statutory processing period.
Having regard to the multiple attempts by Services Australia to assist the applicant, including by providing potential revisions to the scope of the request, the Commissioner was satisfied that reasonable steps were taken to assist the applicant so that the practical refusal reason no longer existed.
Identification of documents (s 24AA(1)(b))
The Commissioner found that while the request and revisions were broad in scope and challenging to interpret, in her view, the revised scope provided sufficient information as reasonably necessary to enable a responsible officer of Services Australia to identify documents falling within it.
The Commissioner did not accept Services Australia’s argument that relevant search terms identified other staff sharing the Applicant’s first name and that they did not have a way to determine whether they were relevant. The IC considered it was open to Services Australia to infer relevance through context and by consulting relevant individuals.
Substantial and unreasonable diversion of resources (s 24AA(1)(a)(i))
Services Australia estimated that 7,351 documents were within the revised scope of the Applicant’s request. To assess the complexity of the work in processing the request, the agency sampled 77 documents representing 1% of the estimated documents in scope. Despite falling short of the OAIC’s recommended sample size of between 10 to 15% of documents, the Commissioner found that the sample size was sufficient in the circumstances.
Services Australia put on evidence regarding the estimated time to search, retrieve, examine and redact the material, having regard to multiple grounds for exemptions. While the Commissioner did not accept Services Australia’s total estimated time to process the request, she did accept that on her own estimate, the processing of the matter would require a substantial diversion of resources.
The Commissioner also accepted that the diversion would be unreasonable having regard to the broadness of the request, acknowledging that the documents were personal in nature and therefore there was limited public interest in disclosure, and the relative workload of Services Australia’s dedicated FOI team.
Conclusion
The IC was satisfied that Services Australia had established that a practical refusal reason existed, on the basis of a substantial and unreasonable diversion of resources.
Key takeaways
- Even where a deemed refusal decision has been made, it may be appropriate for agencies to consider whether a practical refusal decision exists and consult as required.
- While a request for information may be broad in scope, it may nonetheless meet the requirements of s 15(2)(b), namely it provides sufficient information as is reasonably necessary to identify the documents the subject of the request.
- Agencies should consider whether both paragraphs 24AA(1)(a) and (b) apply, when considering whether a practical refusal reason exists.
