Crew and Telstra Corporation Limited

[2005] AATA 423

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2005] AATA 423

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No Q2005/88

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE  DIVISION		)
Re		LISA CREW

Applicant

And TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Deputy President Don Muller

Date11 May 2005  

PlaceBrisbane

Decision The application for an extension of time within which to apply to the Tribunal for review of a decision by the Respondent dated 26 October 2004 is refused.

.............SIGNED.................................

D.W. MULLER

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No Q2005/88

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION		)
Re		LISA CREW

Applicant

And TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED

Respondent

CORRIGENDA [2005] AATA 423

Tribunal Deputy President Don Muller

Date19 May 2005 

PlaceBrisbane

I DIRECT that in paragraph 8 of the Tribunal’s reasons for decision the name Mr. Batscos should be amended to read Mr. Batskos.

… SIGNED……………
   D.W. MULLER

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

CATCHWORDS

Freedom of Information - extension of time to apply for review – respondent conducted diligent search and produced all documents in response to application – review by AAT pointless – extension of time refused

REASONS FOR DECISION

Deputy President Don Muller        

1.      On 31 August 2004, the Applicant applied to the Respondent for information about any complaints made to the Respondent about her Telstra message bank service in 1998.

2.      On 9 September 2004, a Document Line Manager replied to the Applicant to inform her of the results of a search about complaints about her service.  The records showed a complaint made on 13 December 1998 at 09:54.

3.      On or about 15 October 2004, the Applicant requested a review of the decision.

4.      On 26 October 2004, a delegate of the Manager Information Access Unit, reviewed the matter.  He discovered that there was an additional page known as the “Service Orders” report which should have been made available to the Applicant.  He told her that reports from 1998 “have been archived long ago” and are held in electronic form.  He went on to say:

“As indicated above I have made inquiries in relation to the existence of these reports and am satisfied that all-reasonable steps have been taken to locate them if they exist.  Pursuant to section 24A of the Act I have therefore decided to refuse these parts of your request as the reports cannot be found or do not exist.”

He also pointed out to the Applicant that she had a right of review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and that she should make an application for review within 60 days of the receipt of the letter.

5.      On 11 February 2005, the Applicant applied to this Tribunal for review of the above decision.

6.      The application to this Tribunal was approximately 46 days over the time limited for such applications.

7.      At the hearing for extension of time, the Applicant told the Tribunal that she did not put her application in on time because she has been unwell in 2004, and she was also concerned with matters relating to the Christmas/New Year period.

8.      The Tribunal was informed by Mr. Batscos, for Telstra, that the Respondent has done everything it can to fulfil the Applicant’s request and can do no more.

9.      I accept that the Respondent has acted in good faith in this instance and has done all that is possible to search for any documentation which is relevant to the Applicant’s request, and has produced all material in the Respondent’s possession relevant to the Applicant’s request.

10.     I make no judgment as to whether the Applicant’s reasons for failure to apply for review within the time limit are reasonable or not.

11.     In my view, the application to the Tribunal is pointless.  If the Respondent has produced everything it has in response to the application, and if it has made a conscientious search, in the process, there is no scope for the Tribunal to direct the Respondent to do anything other than what it has done.

12.     The application for an extension of time is refused.

I certify that the 12 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Deputy President Don Muller

Signed:         .....................................................................................
           Ruth Link, Associate

Date/s of Hearing  11 May 2005                   
Date of Decision  11 May 2005
Applicant   Ms. Crew, herself
Respondent   Mr. M. Batscos