Hanson and Centrelink - [2006] AATA 1105

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2006] AATA 1105
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL NºV2006/519

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION

Re: SHANE TROY HANSON
Applicant

And:CENTRELINK
Respondent

DECISION
Tribunal:       G.D. Friedman, Senior Member
Date:             21 December 2006
Place:            Melbourne
Decision:(1)      The respondent has complied with Mr Hanson’s Freedom of Information request by granting access to documents on 29 June 2006.
(2)      The Tribunal refuses Mr Hanson’s access to additional relevant documents on the grounds that all reasonable steps have been taken to find the documents, and the Tribunal is satisfied that the documents do not exist.

(sgd) G.D. Friedman
Senior Member

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION - documents relating to access to the applicant’s file ‑ whether documents exempt from disclosure - whether documents can be found or do not exist - sufficiency of searches
Freedom of Information Act 1982 ss 15(5)(a), (b), 24A, 40(1)
Chu v Telstra Corporation Limited (2005) FCA 1730

Re Langer and Telstra Corporation Limited (2002) AATA 341
Re Meschino and Centrelink [2002] AATA 627
Re Viewcross Services Pty Ltd and Telstra Corporation Limited (2003) AATA 1025
REASONS FOR DECISION

21 December 2006  G.D. Friedman, Senior Member
1.      Shane Hanson is a client of Centrelink. In May 2006 he sought information concerning access to his Centrelink file by whom and for what reasons occurring since 1997. He later narrowed his request to information concerning unauthorised browsing of his file within the last 5 years. On 21 June 2006 Mr Hanson sought review by the Tribunal on the grounds that Centrelink had not provided the information.
2.      On 29 June 2006 Centrelink provided Mr Hanson with a number of documents and claimed that this complied with his request under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the FOI Act). Centrelink also claimed that any Customer Record Access Monitor Report (CRAM Report), if created, would be an exempt document under the FOI Act.
ISSUES
3.      The issues before the Tribunal are whether Centrelink has complied with the FOI request, and whether further documents could not be found or do not exist.
HAS CENTRELINK COMPLIED WITH THE FOI REQUEST?
4.        Mr Hanson told the Tribunal that he had placed a number of entries in the Yellow Pages telephone directory promoting proposed businesses that involved the manufacture, sales and distribution of various goods and services. He said that initially he received a few legitimate calls, but after some time he began to receive calls that he believed were directly or indirectly attributable to Centrelink for the purpose of checking his entitlement to social security benefits by matching his identity with a Yellow Pages listing. Mr Hanson described the calls as harassment and a breach of privacy laws by Centrelink staff.
5.        Mr Hanson said that he was dissatisfied with the response by Centrelink to his complaints, and that his efforts to identify the callers had been unsuccessful. He stated that Centrelink had not responded to his FOI request satisfactorily, and he was critical of the delays that prevented him from confirming that unauthorised telephone surveillance…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Hanson and Centrelink and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2006] AATA 1105
Decision Date: 21 December 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Shane Hanson sought information from Centrelink concerning access to his file, particularly unauthorised browsing in the last five years. On 21 June 2006, Mr Hanson sought review by the Tribunal, claiming that Centrelink had not provided the information. On 29 June 2006, Centrelink provided Mr Hanson with a number of documents and claimed that this complied with his request under the Freedom of Information Act 1982. The issues before the Tribunal were whether Centrelink had complied with the FOI request, and whether further documents could not be found or did not exist. The Tribunal found that Centrelink had provided Mr Hanson with a large amount of documentation that comprised copies of relevant computer screens since 1995 and that release of the documents to Mr Hanson complied with the request. In respect of the sufficiency of searches conducted by Centrelink, the Tribunal found that Centrelink had taken comprehensive steps to locate relevant documents by searching databases and other systems. The Tribunal was satisfied that the respondent had done all that could reasonably be required of it to find additional documents that might be relevant to the FOI request and that, within the scope of Mr Hanson’s FOI request for access, no relevant documents exist other than those identified by the respondent and released to Mr Hanson. The Tribunal refused Mr Hanson’s access to additional relevant documents on the grounds that all reasonable steps had been taken to find the documents, and the Tribunal was satisfied that the documents did not exist.

Orders