1. In support of its claim that a "practical refusal reason" exists in relation to the requests of the Applicant for documents, the Respondent has filed the affidavit of Ms Patterson who is the Chief Finance Officer at the Memorial. She has been in that position since 2007, having been employed by the Memorial for approximately 16 years to date. Prior to 2007 she was engaged as the Financial Reporting Manager and the Budget Manager and also had previous experience in relation to financial reporting. She is a Fellow Certified Practising Accountant and is responsible for the overall resource management of the Memorial.
2. Her evidence is that the Respondent has only one staff member available as a Freedom of Information resource who devotes a relatively minor part of her time dealing with Freedom of Information issues. This is because such issues have not been extensive over past years due to the small number of requests. This staff member is employed as an Executive Officer within the Corporate Services area in the Memorial and her responsibilities includes managing risk and insurance for the Memorial, fleet management, preparation of annual reports, corporate and business planning, performance reporting, business continuity, co-ordination of Senate Estimates hearings documentation, and acting as a privacy officer.
3. The Respondent has 330 full time equivalent staff members of which 25 per cent are employed as Corporate Services staff who perform a range of critical functions such as building services, security, information technology support, payroll services, workplace health and safety, recruitment, learning and development, travel, accounts processing, budget management and commercial operations.
4. At present, the corporate priority of the Memorial is the Centenary of the First World War, and the Respondent and staff are at full capacity in meeting increased requirements to deliver relevant programs.
5. Ms Patterson has examined the collection of documents identified in response to the informal request of the Applicant in December 2012 which had not been furnished to the Applicant on 5 August 2013. She notes that, excluding correspondence to and from the Applicant, there were 235 documents comprising a total of 1,003 pages. From her examination she says that at least half the documents contain a significant amount of personal information about other individuals identified as Vietnam veterans. This personal information is interspersed throughout the documents and often many individuals are discussed in close proximity in the same document. Furthermore, the documents include correspondence with government departments including Defence and Veterans' Affairs, the Minister for Veterans' Affair, the office of the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel and a parliamentary committee. They would need to be consulted. The documents also contain references to legal advice and records of internal deliberations which would call for consideration and examination in detail to decide whether they could be the subject of a privilege claim.
6. The affidavit of Ms Patterson states that in relation to the Applicant's FOI requests the Respondent would need to carry out a process commencing with a series of steps to locate documents and decide whether they come within the descriptions in the formal requests.
7. A preliminary search has been made of the Respondent's databases using the name of the Applicant and the platoon and the search results revealed the existence of numerous files and matches of the search terms in the Respondent's SharePoint database. For example in relation to the "2nd D&E platoon" in Vietnam there were 17 files and 3,600 matches in the SharePoint database.
8. A search of all shared drives and electronic libraries on the Respondent's computer systems would need to include records and documentation from a number of sections, including the Research Centre, Military History, Photographs, Film and Sound, Collections Services and the Executive requiring extensive IT assistance. It would also be necessary to examine the email inboxes of all staff. In order to search the Respondent's offices for hard copy documents there would be a need for a detailed search of nine office spaces and an examination of all records located.
9. The Affidavit points out the searches would need to be very comprehensive because the request was extremely broad and general in many respects encompassing "any document" which names the Applicant, for example.
10. After completion of these searches there would need to be extensive work in assessing the documents for release, including examining documents for relevance, undertaking third party consultations with individuals and with the Respondent's technical staff. These examinations would require consultation with staff with specialist knowledge about conflicts. Such staff members are currently significantly busy preparing the Memorial's contribution to the Centenary of ANZAC and First World War commemorations. In addition, it would be necessary to consult with Ministers and other government departments whose information is likely to be contained in a number of the documents in issue. It would be necessary to consult with the former Director of the Memorial who had a personal involvement in the engagement with the Applicant during his directorship. It would be necessary also to consider issues involving technical considerations as to personal information and other exemptions under the FOI Act.
11. It would then be necessary to prepare a decision probably including a large number of redactions to documents prior to release to the Applicant having regard to the extensive amount of personal information concerning numerous other ex-servicemen said to be connected with the platoon.
12. Ms Patterson states that the work involved in carrying out these consultations would take numerous Memorial employees away from normal duties and delay other project work, including high priority matters concerning the extensive ANZAC and First World War Commemoration commitments this year.
13. The evidence before me is that in order to process the first request there would need to be at least 150 hours of processing time after taking into account the work involved in producing the documents already furnished to the Applicant. In relation to the second request made on 21 August 2013 the evidence is that a further very substantial period of time would be required to process the request in the order of at least 48 hours. These estimates were produced by the officer responsible for processing FOI applications.

1. Ms Patterson was cross-examined by the Applicant on a number of matters but on significant matters relevant to the issue as to the existence of a practical refusal reason the weight of her evidence was not significantly diminished.
2. In relation to the issue as to whether it was an unreasonable demand on the resources of the Respondent, the Applicant refers to the reasons he seeks the documents, namely his objective of obtaining material in relation to the "2nd D&E Platoon" and the exposure of what he alleges is fraudulent conduct. He also points to the FOI Policy of the Respondent and the Objects of the FOI Act.
3. It is common ground that the onus of establishing that a practical refusal reason exists is on the Respondent and that the objects set out in section 3 of the FOI Act are to increase public participation in Government processes, and scrutiny, discussion, comment and review of governmental activity and he correctly states that these objects must be given very significant weight. In addition, he refers to the intention that the functions and powers given by the FOI Act are to be exercised in order to facilitate and promote public access to information, promptly and at the lowest reasonable cost. It is noted that section 11 of the FOI Act provides that subject to other provisions, every person has a legally enforceable right to obtain access to information in accordance with the FOI Act. This means that the broad general right is subject to other provisions of the Act.
4. The Applicant accepts that under sections 24 and 24AA the issue whether the processing of a request might unreasonably divert resources is a question of fact. He notes paragraph 3.66 in the previous version of the Guidelines issued by the Australian Information Commissioner published in relation to the FOI Act. (In the current version of the Guidelines paragraph 3.66 has been replaced by paragraphs 3.100, 3.103 and 3.105.) That paragraph directed attention to the question whether delay could be caused to other programs which are substantial and unreasonable, particularly where the project or program is a significant agency function. The test of diversion was whether a "line" of activities is substantially impaired in its capacity to deal with its ordinary functions.
5. The Applicant contends that the Respondent has had ample time to engage in the necessary research to make the documents available and he further says that the upcoming commemorations should not be given any significant weight. He contends that the Respondent has been concerned more about protecting reputations of certain individuals than by abiding by the "spirit" of the FOI Act. He also asserts that the Respondent has already done most of the necessary work and he does not accept that there is much more work to do.

1. Under section 24 the agency must undertake a request consultation process if satisfied that a practical refusal reason exists in relation to the request. This process is set out in section 24AB. In this case I am satisfied that this consultation process was undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the FOI Act. The Respondent's letter dated 10 September 2013 contained the matters required by subsection (2). The letter also usefully identified ways the Applicant's requests might be revised in an attempt to remove the practical refusal reason.
2. The Applicant places great weight on the reasons for which he requires access.
3. However, under section 24AA when deciding whether a practical refusal reason exists, regard must not be directed to any reasons which the Applicant gives for requesting access or to the agency's belief as to what are the Applicant's reasons for requesting access.
4. I have also taken into account Part 3 of the current version of the Guidelines issued by the Australian Information Commissioner under section 93A of the FOI Act, particularly paragraphs 3.96 to 3.107.
5. In order to determine whether there would be a substantial and unreasonable diversion of resources from other operations, it is necessary to first determine the scope of the request, and this will enable an assessment to be made as to the extent of any diversion of resources which will be caused. In this case the scope is extremely wide and non-specific.
6. When considering the nature and extent of resources necessary to deal with an FOI request it is appropriate for an assessment to be made on what is estimated to be the amount and extent of work involved in compliance with the request for information but it is not necessary when considering the exercise of power to refuse the request under section 24 to consider in detail the contents of all documents comprised in a wide ranging and generalised request such as the present one. The process is one which requires a consideration of the resources likely to be necessary in order to comply.
7. From the first request made pursuant to the FOI Act, it can be seen that there is no limitation as to time. It is framed on the basis that it requires all documents referring to the "2nd D&E Platoon matter". There is then a reference to correspondence between certain persons being included as part of that imprecise and unlimited request. The request also seeks correspondence regarding the Applicant over a period of more than nine years concerning five named persons. It can be appreciated from an examination of the scope and nature of the request and the requirements of the FOI Act that there is a requirement to employ very significant resources to comply and this is, in my view, established by the affidavit of Ms Patterson and also the letter of refusal.
8. When the request for these documents were made on an informal basis 90 documents relating to the request were furnished and a number of these were furnished in a redacted form after removing personal information. This is not a case where the Respondent has made no efforts to provide documents in response to the Applicant's requests. The Respondent has acted reasonably in relation to the Applicant's requests and has cooperated with him to a significant extent by providing documents in response to informal requests. This is not a case where an agency has simply refused to engage in any meaningful manner with an applicant in relation to his request for information.
9. As pointed out by the Respondent in its refusal of the FOI request, the use of resources could be substantially reduced in the event that the Applicant undertakes the task of being more specific as to the documents requested, or clarifying specifically the information that he seeks. The Applicant will be assisted in the task of modifying his request so as to be more specific and detailed by using the substantial number of documents he has already received. As a consequence of the request being altered to be more specific and precise, no doubt, some of the resources would be unnecessary and the force of the practical reasons for refusal would be lessened.
10. Having regard to the evidence before me from Ms Patterson and the material furnished by both the Respondent and the Applicant, I am satisfied that work involved in processing the request for documents in this case would substantially and unreasonably divert the resources of the agency from its other operations. In particular, on the evidence I consider that the operations concerning the current projects relating to the Centenary commemorations and the ANZAC project are important priority operations which will require the dedication of substantial resources and that resources will be diverted from these important projects if the Applicant's requests in their present terms are to be pursued.
11. In reaching this conclusion I have taken into account the time, cost and amount of work and the expert personnel needed to find, identify and collate the documents sought in the agency or in other departments, and to analyse and examine the documents together with consultations with other persons or entities in relation to the request. Extensive redacting of the documents will probably be required and this redaction will involve fine and complex decisions as to the need for redaction and the extent of such redaction.
12. I consider that in this matter the Respondent has acted in a responsible and reasonable manner in making available a substantial number of records and in attempting to narrow the scope and lessen the burden of searching for the information to be made available and that is has made out its case for refusal on the grounds of the existence of "practical reasons" for refusal.

1. I accept the detailed evidence of Ms Patterson and after taking into account the material present before me including the T documents and all the material produced by the Applicant and his detailed submissions, I consider that the decision under review should be affirmed.

I certify that the preceding 52 (fifty -two) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of The Hon. Brian Tamberlin, QC, Deputy President

....................[sgd]...............................................