CLEMENT VAN DER BOOR and CENTRELINK
[2009] AATA 460
•24 June 2009
Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2009] AATA 460
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No 2008/3722
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION ) Re CLEMENT VAN DER BOOR Applicant
And
CENTRELINK
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Mr S. Webb, Member Date24 June 2009
PlaceCanberra
Decision The decision under review is affirmed.
.................[sgd]........................
Mr S. Webb, Member
CATCHWORDS
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION - searches - adequate searches conducted - irrelevant material - decision affirmed
Freedom of Information Act 1982 – sections 22, 24A
REASONS FOR DECISION
24 June 2009 Mr S. Webb, Member 1. Clement Van Der Boor is a social security recipient. He requested access to certain documents and information concerning the deduction of payments to third parties from his social security pension. Specifically, Mr Van Der Boor wanted access to information about the person or persons who authorised the transfer of his Centrepay deductions from Centacare to Havelock Housing Association Inc. A number of documents were identified and released to him with deletions but no document or information identifying the person or persons who authorised the transfer was found. Mr Van Der Boor was not happy with the result and requested internal review. The original decision was affirmed. The decision is presently before the Tribunal for review.
2. Centrepay is a service provided by Centrelink whereby customers may choose to have bills for rent or telephone services, for example, paid directly from their Centrelink payments. In order to use the service, Centrelink customers must provide authority to Centrelink in respect of the particular payments. In order to receive such payments, recipient organisations must first register with Centrelink. When changes occur in the ownership of recipient organisations or relevant businesses, it appears that Centrelink transfers customers with existing Centrepay deductions to the new owner or business unless the customer chooses to opt out of the new arrangement.[1]
[1] T18 folio 50.
3. In order to understand Mr Van Der Boor’s case it is helpful to set out the background facts. Mr Van Der Boor authorised Centrepay deductions for rent to Centacare, an organisation of the Archdiocese of Canberra. At that time Centacare was the tenancy manager for public housing at the Ainslie Village in Braddon. In 2005, the Ainslie Village tenancy management business was taken over by Havelock Housing Association Incorporated. In a letter dated 27 October 2005 Mr Van Der Boor was notified that on 1 December 2005 a new tenancy manager would take over from Centacare and, as a result, it would be necessary to change his Centrepay deductions.[2] As can be seen, Mr Van Der Boor was informed that he could record his consent to the change by informing the reception office at Ainslie Village or by “simply [doing] nothing” in which case “we will accept your action as passive consent to change your Centrepay”. Alternatively, Mr Van Der Boor could simply tick a ‘No’ box and return the letter by the due date (18 November 2005). Mr Van Der Boor annotated the letter in the following terms:[3]
Found in envelope wedged in door of P-1 at 11am on Tuesday 22nd day of November 2005.
[2] T5 folio 15.
[3] T5 folio 16.
4. His evidence is that he did not authorise the transfer of his Centrepay deductions from Centacare to Havelock Housing Association Inc.[4] Nevertheless, the transfer proceeded.
[4] See written submissions by Mr Van Der Boor dated 27 August 2008 and 5 May 2009.
5. On 15 May 2008 Mr Van Der Boor lodged a request for access to documents in the following terms:[5]
Any documentation or record of who authorised the transfer of my Centrepay deductions from Centacare to Havelock Housing Association Inc.
[5] T8 folio 19.
6. Two documents were identified in response to this request and both were released without deletions.[6] One of the documents states that “Information was obtained via Facsimile using E-Mail”.[7] Mr Van Der Boor maintained that this indicated the involvement of persons other than himself and requested internal review.[8]
[6] T10 folios 29-35.
[7] T10 folio 33.
[8] T11, T12 and T13 refer.
7. On 5 August 2008 Centrelink issued an internal review decision.[9] Ms Moller, a Centrelink officer authorised under s 23 of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the Act), decided to refuse Mr Van Der Boor’s request under s 24A of the Act on the basis that “All reasonable steps to locate the documents you have requested have been undertaken and they cannot be found”.[10]
[9] T18.
[10] T18 folio 51.
8. I was informed that Centrelink identified one further document following Mr Van Der Boor’s application to the Tribunal for review. That document sets out the names and bank account details of a number of Centrelink customers, including Mr Van Der Boor, and a hand-written annotation.[11] Centrelink asserted that the names and details of persons other than Mr Van Der Boor are exempt and should not be released. The document was handed up during the hearing and I ordered that access to it be restricted to members and relevant staff of the Tribunal and relevant officers and representatives of the respondent.
[11] Exhibit R1, Annexure A.
9. It was plain to me on examination of the document that the material claimed to be exempt was in fact information that was irrelevant to Mr Van Der Boor’s request, being the names and bank account details of other Centrelink clients. It is appropriate, therefore, to grant access to a copy of this document with the irrelevant material deleted pursuant to s 22 of the Act. The document with deletions was released to Mr Van Der Boor.
10. Thus, the issue for determination is whether adequate searches had been conducted to identify all documents within the scope of Mr Van Der Boor’s request that are in Centrelink’s possession.
11. During the hearing a number of affidavits sworn by Centrelink officers were handed up. Each officer was called to give oral evidence. Ms Chick, Ms Moller and Ms Margetts gave evidence about the searches conducted in response to Mr Van Der Boor’s request for access to information.[12] Mr Batterham gave evidence concerning Centrelink procedures in relation to Centrepay transfers and related authorisations.[13] Ms Begovic gave evidence concerning Centrepay procedures and actions relating to the transfer of customer authorised deductions from Centacare to Havelock Housing Association Inc.[14]
[12] Exhibits R1, R2 and R5.
[13] Exhibit R4.
[14] Exhibit R3.
12. Considering this evidence and the evidence given by Mr Van Der Boor, it was apparent to me that the searches conducted may not have included all physical files and relevant computer records concerning Mr Van Der Boor and the transfer of Centrepay deductions consequent upon the transfer of tenancy management at the Ainslie Village in 2005, and that further searches should be conducted. This was done, but no further documents were identified or returned. Further affidavits by Ms Keely Horan, Ms Diana Wareing and Ms Lisa Kearney were filed by Centrelink. Written submissions were filed by both parties.
13. In sum, Mr Van Der Boor asserts that additional documents must exist, and that he should be provided with access to them.
14. That submission is not made out.
15. I am satisfied that all reasonable searches for documents within the scope of Mr Van Der Boor’s request have been made. All relevant documents have been released to him. I understand that Mr Van Der Boor is surprised that additional documents have not been found and he is convinced that more documents must exist concerning the transfer of his Centrepay deductions from Centacare to Havelock Housing Association Inc. At the heart of Mr Van Der Boor’s assertion is the statement recorded by Centrelink that information concerning the transfer authority was received by facsimile.[15] On 17 February 2009 Centrelink asserted that the facsimile that prompted the changes to his Centrepay deductions was included in a batch storage arrangement ‘off file’ and that such documents are destroyed after two years. In his submission dated 9 June 2009, Mr Van Der Boor asserts that this was not appropriate under the Archives Act 1983. It is not possible on the present evidence to determine with any certainty that the particular document was in fact destroyed. The present evidence does not support that conclusion and points to the likelihood that the document is the same document that has been released to Mr Van Der Boor with the names and details of other parties deleted. That is consistent with the evidence of Ms Begovic, Mr Batterham and Ms Chick, which I accept. Mr Van Der Boor is critical of Centrelink’s record keeping procedures and he finds it difficult to accept that his Centrepay deductions were transferred without explicit authority from him. Those are not matters before me.
[15] T10 folio 33.
16. Having weighed all of the evidence, I am satisfied that Mr Van Der Boor’s request is appropriately dealt with under s 24A of the Act. I am satisfied that all reasonable steps have been taken to find documents in Centrelink’s possession that are within the scope of Mr Van Der Boor’s request. All documents that have been found have been released to Mr Van Der Boor with irrelevant material deleted. I am also satisfied that if any further documents exist in Centrelink’s possession, and that appears to be most unlikely, they cannot be found. In the circumstances it is not reasonable to proceed further and require Centrelink to audit all files in the relevant offices. Searches of that extent and nature are not reasonable in the circumstances.
17. It follows, in conclusion, that the decision under review must be affirmed.
I certify that the 17 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Mr S. Webb, Member.
Signed: ......................[sgd]..........................................................
T. Aviram, AssociateDate of Hearing 9 June 2009
Date of Decision 24 June 2009
Applicant self-represented
Counsel for the Respondent Ms K. Horan, Centrelink Legal Services
0
0
0