Ilba and Centrelink FOI

[2005] AATA 1092

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2005] AATA 1092

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No S2005/131

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION		)
Re		EDWARD ILBA

Applicant

And CENTRELINK FOI

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Senior Member L Hastwell

Date3 November 2005

PlaceAdelaide

Decision The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

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

L HASTWELL
  (Senior Member)

CATCHWORDS

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION – request for access to documents – grounds for exempting release of information – incorrect information on files – decision affirmed

Freedom of Information Act 1982 ss 3, 41

REASONS FOR DECISION

3 November 2005 Senior Member L Hastwell     

1.      Mr Ilba (the applicant) lodged a request under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the Act) on 8 February 2005 seeking access to documents, namely his Centrelink file.

2.      On 8 March 2005 a Freedom of Information Officer from the respondent (the Department) made a decision to grant him access to his entire file, apart from three documents that were released with some parts deleted.  The deletions pertained to his wife’s Centrelink customer reference number.

3.      A review of the decision was sought by the applicant on the basis that he believed that information in the files was incorrect.  In telephone contact with an officer of the Department, he also suggested that the files contained lies.  A Review Officer confirmed the original decision on 6 May 2005.  The applicant has sought a review of that decision to this Tribunal.

legislation

4. Under the Act, a member of the public is entitled to access to information and in some instances to seek amendment of records. The objects of the Act are set out in s 3 of the Act as follows:

“(1)The object of this Act is to extend as far as possible the right of the Australian community to access to information in the possession of the Government of the Commonwealth by:

(a)making available to the public information about the operations of departments and public authorities and, in particular, ensuring that rules and practices affecting members of the public in their dealings with departments and public authorities are readily available to persons affected by those rules and practices; and

(b)creating a general right of access to information in documentary form in the possession of Ministers, departments and public authorities, limited only by exceptions and exemptions necessary for the protection of essential public interests and the private and business affairs of persons in respect of whom information is collected and held by departments and public authorities; and

(c)creating a right to bring about the amendment of records containing personal information that is incomplete, incorrect, out of date or misleading.

(2)It is the intention of the Parliament that the provisions of this Act shall be interpreted so as to further the object set out in subsection (1) and that any discretions conferred by this Act shall be exercised as far as possible so as to facilitate and promote, promptly and at the lowest reasonable cost, the disclosure of information.”

5. Various documents are exempt from disclosure and in particular s 41(1) provides:

“(1)A document is an exempt document if its disclosure under this Act would involve the unreasonable disclosure of personal information about any person (including a deceased person).”

the hearing

6.      At the hearing before the Tribunal the applicant represented himself, with the assistance of an interpreter in the Polish language.  His position was that he did not challenge the deletions that had been made to the three documents, but rather believed that he had not been provided with the whole file or with an accurate file, and further he appeared to want a correction of file content although unable to point to any specific section that he wanted corrected.  He believed that sections of his file were missing.

7.      The Tribunal’s observation was that the applicant appeared irrational in his belief that there were lies contained in his file and parts of his file were missing.  He appeared to have a complex agenda relating to the Department, which included a belief that he was being harassed in some way.  He could point to no evidence in support of any of these assertions.

8.      The only issue for the Tribunal to determine is the whether the Department can do anything more to comply with its obligations under the Act.  The deletions that are acknowledged are accepted by the applicant as being appropriately exempt parts of the file under the Act.

consideration

9.      The Tribunal is satisfied that the Department has complied with its obligations under the Act.  The Tribunal has no reason to doubt the Department’s assertion that the entire file has been provided to the applicant, and there is nothing else available to provide.  The documents are the only documents in the possession of the Department.  The applicant is unable to identify any documents he claims are missing.

10.     The applicant alleges that there are lies contained in his file.  He puts this accusation in general terms and cannot point to those lies or incorrect portions of the file.  He does not seek a specific correction of record, but rather suggests some larger and more complex conspiracy on the part of the Department against him and his family.

11.     The Tribunal is satisfied that the Department has complied with its obligations under the Act, and that the entire file has been provided to the applicant, subject to three deletions that are not contested by the applicant.  The applicant can point to no specific inaccuracies, and he cannot give any clear account of what he believes to be missing.

12.     In the circumstances the Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

I certify that the 12 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member L Hastwell

Signed:         ...........J Coulthard ........................................
  Associate

Date of Hearing  18 August 2005
Date of Decision  3 November 2005
Counsel for the Applicant         In person
Solicitor for the Applicant          -
Counsel for the Respondent     Ms A Pugsley
Solicitor for the Respondent     Centrelink Legal Services Branch