Astle and Child Support Registrar

[2006] AATA 391

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2006] AATA 391

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No  A2004/314

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION		)
Re		CRAIG ASTLE

Applicant

And  CHILD SUPPORT REGISTRAR

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal   J.W. Constance, Senior Member

Date  5 May 2006

Place  Canberra

Decision The decision of the Child Support Registrar made 12 August 2004 refusing Mr Astle access to further documents pursuant to his request made 5 February 2004 is affirmed.

..............................................

J.W. Constance, Senior Member

CATCHWORDS

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION – Documents claimed to be exempt – Protected information -   Personal information – Sufficiency of search.

Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) ss 3, 24A 38.

Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth) s 150(2).

REASONS FOR DECISION

5 May 2006 J.W. Constance, Senior Member             

INTRODUCTION

1.      Mr Astle is seeking a review of a decision by the Child Support Registrar denying him access to three documents following an application made under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth). A number of documents were released in response to the request.

2.      It is not in dispute that the three documents are relevant to the request.  In two instances the issue is whether the document is an exempt document; in the third case the issue is whether the Registrar has taken all reasonable steps to find the document.

3.      For the reasons which follow the decision under review will be affirmed.

THE REQUEST FOR ACCESS

4.      On 9 February 2004 the Registrar received from Mr Astle a request  “for all documents held by the CSA in relation to [Case numbers 467940 and 699074] since my earlier request of the 13^th of November 2003.” [1]

[1] S.37 document T3.

LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND

5. Under subsection 150(2) of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth) the Registrar must not communicate to a person any protected information concerning another person. The exceptions to this provision are not relevant here. “Protected information” includes information disclosed to a person who is acting in the course of his or her duties under the Act.

6.      Documents are exempt from production under section 38 of the Freedom of Information Act if disclosure is prohibited under a provision of another Act and the provision is specified in Schedule 3 of the Freedom of Information Act. Subsection 150(2)(b) of the Child Support (Assessment) Act is so specified.

7.      Section 3 of the Freedom of Information Act requires that I exercise any discretion I have in determining a claim for exemption “as far as possible so as to facilitate and promote, promptly and at the lowest reasonable cost , the disclosure of information”   held by the Registrar.  This is supported by the provisions of section 41 which place on the Commission the onus of justifying why the Tribunal should make a decision which is adverse to Mr Astle.

EVIDENCE

8.      Affidavits by Ms Dolores Schneider and Ms Kathryn Willis, both staff members of the Child Support Agency, have been filed on behalf of the Registrar.  I accept the evidence of each of these witnesses.

CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION FOR DOCUMENT 66

9.      This document is a copy of a record of sole assessment details for case 699074 for the period 1/9/03 to 30/11/04.  On the basis of the evidence of Ms Schneider I am satisfied that this document was created by an officer of the Agency as required by the Child Support (Assessment) Act and that it contains personal information about a third person provided by that person.

10.     I am satisfied that document 66 is an exempt document under section 38 of the Freedom of Information Act.

CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION FOR DOCUMENT 69

11.     This document is a copy of a record of sole assessment details for case 467940 for the period 1/9/03 to 30/11/04.  On the basis of Ms Schneider’s evidence and for the same reasons as stated in relation to document 66 I am satisfied that document 69 is exempt from production.

SEARCH FOR DOCUMENT SIMILAR TO DOCUMENT 62

12.     Document 62 is a computer printout of action undertaken by the Registrar to ascertain certain financial information of Mr Astle.  The document has been released without deletions.  Ms Woodward who represented Mr Astle in these proceedings questioned whether there was another version of this document to which Mr Astle had not been given access.  I accept the evidence of Ms Willis that she has searched the Agency’s computer system and that no other version of this document was located.  I am satisfied that all reasonable steps have been taken to find another relevant document similar to document 62 and that such a document does not exist.  The Agency is entitled to refuse the request for access to such a document.[2]

[2] Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) s 24A.

THE QUESTION OF THE CONTENT OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED

13.     Ms Woodward raised issues as to the content of some of the documents produced and wished to put forward arguments as to the additional information it would be expected the documents would contain.  There was no evidence whatsoever to suggest that any of the documents had been tampered with.  These issues are not relevant to the application before me.

DECISION

14.     The decision of the Child Support Registrar made 12 August 2004 refusing Mr Astle access to further documents pursuant to his request made 5 February 2004 is affirmed.

I certify that the 14 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of J.W. Constance, Senior Member.

Signed:         .....................................................................................
  Joe Meagher, Associate

Date/s of Hearing  13 & 24 February & 16 March 2006
Date of Decision  5 May 2006
Representative for the Applicant    Julie Woodward

Solicitor for the Respondent          Delores Schneider, Legal Services - Child Support Agency