After being given the run around for several months to a request for DIBPs staff contact details under the FOI, the DIBP eventually refused the request of Melbourne Solicitor Maria Jockel who then had to turn to the office of the Information Commissioner for a review of the decision.

DIBP provided various excuses to Ms Jockel late last year on why they could not provide her with information relating to “the structure of the Department and various contact lists for particular sections within the Department, including the ‘top structure’ of senior management.”

“Ms Jockel particularly sought the Department’s Australian State and Global structure charts; and contact lists that identify the position names, title, telephone number and email addresses of relevant staff members.” According to the Information Commissioners decision.

The DIBP responses effectively told her to look it up online indicating that it would take too much time and effort and may potentially require them to consult with ‘several hundred employees’ before providing her with their personal information. Ironically, Ms Jockel had successfully obtained similar information under the FOI from the DIBP on previous occasions.

The Information Commissioner was not satisfied with DIBPs responses and found that the DIBP “has not discharged its onus under s 55D of the FOI Act of establishing that its decision is justified…” and ordered the DIBP to “process Ms Maria Jockel’s request, and notify her of its decision no later than 30 days…”

The decision indicated that the DIBP had a positive obligation to help stating that “agencies have to take reasonable steps to assist a person to make an FOI request under s 15(3) of the FOI Act and to assist a person to revise an FOI request so that a practical refusal reason no longer exists under s 24AB(3) of the FOI Act." Information Commissioner.

The Information Commissioner concluded that, “[The] Department submits that much of the information previously provided (top structure charts) was publicly available at the time of the request. However, the Department has not provided any submissions addressing the adequacy of the searches it has undertaken for documents falling within the scope of the request. Therefore, for this reason, I am not satisfied that the Department has discharged its onus under s 55D of the FOI Act of establishing that its decision to refuse access to documents relating to Parts 3 and 4 and Parts 7 to 12 of the request on the basis that documents do not exist is justified or that I should give a decision adverse to Ms Jockel.”