Crawley and Centrelink

[2006] AATA 1031

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2006] AATA 1031

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No Q2006/239

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION		)
Re		WAYNE CRAWLEY

Applicant

And CENTRELINK

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Senior Member B J McCabe

Date1 December 2006

PlaceBrisbane

Decision The decision under review is affirmed.

.................[Sgd].............................

SENIOR MEMBER

CATCHWORDS

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION – access to documents – applicant seeks access to records of complaint made against certain Centrelink officers – exemption under s 24A FOI Act – respondent undertook all reasonable searches

Freedom of Information Act 1982 s 24A

REASONS FOR DECISION

1 December 2006	Senior Member B J McCabe
introduction

1.      Mr Wayne Crawley has made a request under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the FOI Act) to access documents he believes are in the possession of Centrelink. He says the documents relate to a complaint he made against several Centrelink officers in 2005. The respondent says the documents either do not exist or cannot be found. The reviewable decision (ie, the decision made upon internal review) relies on s 24A of the FOI Act to refuse the request. The applicant has asked the Tribunal to reconsider the matter.

2.      Centrelink made a number of officers available for the hearing on 18 September 2006 so its claim could be put to the test. After the applicant asked questions about some files which he said had not been examined, the solicitor for the respondent asked for an adjournment so the respondent could make further investigations. That occurred, and the hearing resumed on 18 October 2006.

the material before the tribunal

3. The applicant appeared in person. Mr Dubé represented the respondent. The documents required under s 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 were filed. Mr Smith, Ms Neely and Ms Moller were called by the respondent to give evidence. Ms Moller, Mr Beauchamp, Ms Terry and Mr Boundy provided statements. All of those individuals are Centrelink officers. The applicant also provided a series of documents under cover of a letter dated 15 June 2006.

the complaint, the request for documents and the search

4.      Mr Crawley complained to Centrelink about his treatment at the hands of Mr Smith and Ms Neely. The applicant has lodged complaints against other officers in the past; a list of those complaints is set out under cover of his correspondence with Centrelink dated 15 June 2006 (exhibit 6). The other complaints are not relevant here as the reviewable decision only addresses the documents concerning Mr Smith and Ms Neely. Mr Crawley was not satisfied with the response to his initial complaint and subsequently wrote to the chief executive. He was not happy with that response either.

5.      The applicant made an FOI application on 31 October 2005 seeking access to documents relating to the investigation of his complaints. He was told on 30 January 2006 that 13 documents had been found which were relevant to the request. One of the documents was released in part and the thirteenth was withheld. On review, the delegate of the chief executive agreed that part of the correspondence between Centrelink and the Ombudsman should be withheld because it contained information relating to a third party. The delegate also refused to release a written record of the investigation because no such record could be located.

6.      Ms Moller dealt with the applicant’s request on behalf of Centrelink. She gave evidence describing her searches. She spoke in her statement about examining the files which might contain documents relating to Mr Crawley’s complaints including the personnel files and other files maintained in Centrelink’s Policy and Workplace Relations offices in Brisbane and Canberra. After the adjournment, Ms Moller confirmed she had examined two ministerial liaison files and the Ombudsman liaison file.

7.      Ms Neely and Mr Smith both gave evidence. They said they did not recall any notes being taken by any officer when the complaints were discussed with them.

8.      Mr Crawley found much of this unbelievable. He expressed surprise that there was no register of correspondence that would enable Centrelink to trace individual documents. Mr Dubé told me the administrative systems in place did not reveal the existence of any other documents.

9.      Mr Dubé also pointed out that the adequacy of any investigation into Mr Crawley’s complaint was not a matter for the Tribunal. I think this went to the heart of Mr Crawley’s argument: if his complaint had been taken seriously and afforded the attention he believed it deserved, there should be more documents recording what happened.

the exemption in s 24a

10. Section 24A of the FOI Act permits the decision-maker to refuse access to documents where the agency determines the documents cannot be found or do not exist after all reasonable steps have been taken to find the documents. Mr Crawley says other documents must exist; Centrelink disagrees, but says it has in any event taken all reasonable steps to find the documents and believes they cannot be found.

11. I agree that the exemption in s 24A should be invoked in this case. I understand Mr Crawley’s surprise that other documents have not been located; it is understandable that he would expect notes might have been taken of the conversations with Mr Smith and Ms Neely, for example. Without commenting on the adequacy of that investigation, I am satisfied after hearing from Ms Neely and Mr Smith that notes were not in fact taken. I also make no comment on Mr Crawley’s criticism of Centrelink’s document management systems.

12.     Ms Moller made it clear she had made inquiries of all the relevant offices that might hold files, and an adjournment was allowed to make sure that further investigations were made for the sake of completeness. Nothing more was found. I ultimately accept Mr Dubé’s submission that all steps were taken short of conducting an exhaustive audit of all Centrelink files in the relevant offices. I accept it would not have been reasonable to take that further step.

conclusion

13. I accept the respondent is entitled to rely on s 24A of the FOI Act to decline to produce additional documents sought by Mr Crawley. The decision under review is therefore affirmed.

I certify that the 13 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member B J McCabe.

Signed:         .....................................................................................
  Associate      Adam Ryan

Dates of Hearing  18 September 2006 & 18 October 2006
Date of Decision  1 December 2006
The applicant represented himself at the hearing.
The respondent was represented by Mr Dubé, a departmental advocate.