Lawrance v Centrelink

Case [2005] FCA 1318

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Lawrance v Centrelink [2005] FCA 1318

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – appeal from Administrative Appeals Tribunal – freedom of information request – appeal dismissed

Commonwealth Services Delivery Agency Act 1997 (Cth)
Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) s 4, 15, 15A, 16, 24A, 54, 61

Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67 cited
Clements v Independent Indigenous Advisory Committee (2003) 131 FCR 28 cited
Day v Lynn (2004) 138 FCR 300 applied
Re Ruddock (in his capacity as Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs); Ex parte Applicant S154/2002 (2003) 201 ALR 437 applied

AROHA LAWRANCE v CENTRELINK
NSD 137 OF 2005

HELY J
16 SEPTEMBER 2005
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 137 OF 2005

ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

BETWEEN:

AROHA LAWRANCE
APPELLANT

AND:

CENTRELINK
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

HELY J

DATE OF ORDER:

16 SEPTEMBER 2005

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The appeal be dismissed with costs.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 137 OF 2005

ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

BETWEEN:

AROHA LAWRANCE
APPELLANT

AND:

CENTRELINK
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

HELY J

DATE:

16 SEPTEMBER 2005

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. Ms Lawrance’s employment history within the Commonwealth Public Service can be summarised as follows:

    1986-1992            -     Department of Social Security (‘DSS’)
    1992-1997            -     Member, Social Security Appeals Tribunal (‘SSAT’)

    November 1997-

    August 1998          -     Administrative Law Section of Centrelink (‘ALS’)
    31 August 1998      -     Refugee Review Tribunal (‘RRT’)

    Centrelink is an Agency established by the Commonwealth Services Delivery Agency Act 1997 (Cth).  Ms Lawrance is no longer employed by the RRT.  The evidence does not establish when her engagement by the RRT ended, but that information is not material to the resolution of the present appeal.

  2. By letter dated 23 February 2004 addressed to the Principal Executive Officer, Centrelink, Ms Lawrance sought access to ‘my personnel records as well as all other records held by Centrelink containing personal information about me and health information about me’.  Ms Lawrance stated that she was seeking access to her DSS personnel records as well as Centrelink records, which she assumed were amalgamated with Centrelink records when Centrelink overtook most of the DSS functions.  She said that she was also seeking access to all DSS records, personal and health information about her from her employment at the West Ryde and Redfern DSS offices.  The request also stated that Ms Lawrance was seeking access:

    ‘… to all records which contain sensitive, personal, and health information, including records of any arrangements involving CRS Australia or the Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission under s 25 or Part III of the Disability Services Act (Cth) 1986.’

    Ms Lawrance said that she had reason to believe that such an arrangement may have been entered into at around 1998 or 1999 and that it was arranged while she…

Continue reading Lawrance v Centrelink

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Lawrance v Centrelink [2005] FCA 1318
Case
[2005] FCA 1318
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Lawrance was the appellant in a case against Centrelink, the respondent, regarding the adequacy of the respondent's response to a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth). The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) had earlier dismissed Ms Lawrance's appeal against Centrelink's refusal to provide her with certain documents. Ms Lawrance sought review of that decision by the Federal Court. The legal issues before the Court were whether Centrelink had taken all reasonable steps to find the documents Ms Lawrance requested and whether those documents exist, as required by section 24A of the FOI Act. The Court held that it was not persuaded that the AAT had erred in its finding that Centrelink had taken all reasonable steps to find the documents that Ms Lawrance had requested. The Court found that there was no evidence that the documents existed and held that the appeal should be dismissed with costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal be dismissed with costs.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

HELY J
Section 61 of the FOI Act places on the agency the onus of establishing that the decision given in respect of an FOI request was justified, or that the AAT should give a decision adverse to the applicant.The AAT’s decision Senior Member Kelly identified as the issues for determination whether Centrelink has taken all reasonable steps to find the documents Ms Lawrance requested and whether or not they exist, as required by s 24A of the FOI Act. Senior Member Kelly prefaced her consideration of those issues with the following introduction:‘10. To understand Ms Lawrance’s case, it is necessary to know the background to her request. Her evidence was that a couple of people in 2000 and 2004 had told her that a former friend of hers (not employed by Centrelink) sent emails to her employer. She believed the email quite wrongly imputed to her psychiatric disorders. The employer was not specified.11. Also, in 2002 a doctor told her that “Canberra needs a diagnosis” and in 2003 a doctor told her that a close relative of hers had been observing her. As a result of these remarks Ms Lawrance formed the belief that there was a possibility of an assessment of her or a program of some kind being carried out, or conditions being implemented in relation to her during her employment at the Administrative Law Section of Centrelink (“ALS”). She formed this belief some years after she had left Centrelink’s employment.’ Ms Lawrance contended before the AAT that if a psychiatric assessment of her had been commissioned, such a sensitive document would not have been placed on her personnel file. There was evidence from Ms Garcia that if such an assessment had been obtained in relation to Ms Lawrance it would have been recorded in her own name and would be contained in her personnel file. Ms Lawrance contended that Ms Garcia’s evidence was unreliable but the AAT made the following finding of fact:‘22. I accept Ms Garcia’s evidence in cross-examination that if there had been a program such as Ms Lawrance contends, the records would be on her personnel file. Further, the requests Ms Garcia made were for all information relating to Ms Lawrance, not just her personnel file and even if information were confidential, it would have been disclosed.’ A Commonwealth Medical Officer (‘CMO’) prepared a report in relation to Ms Lawrance when she joined the Public Service in 1986. Ms Lawrance told the AAT that she had received ‘one page of it, not the whole thing’ from the RRT, although the page which she received was not produced to the AAT for its examination. Ms Lawrance also told the AAT that she remembered that on the day of her examination she saw the CMO sign a two double page report. Ms Lawrance relied upon the failure of Centrelink to produce the CMO’s report, or the balance of it, as evidence that it had failed to comply with its obligations under the FOI Act. Ms Garcia gave evidence before the AAT that to her recollection the CMO reports were only about a page long and consisted of a series of columns with the option for the CMO to tick either yes or no although she could not specifically say whether she had ever seen a form that was used in 1986. Ms Lawrance disputed the evidence given by Ms Garcia.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: HELY J

Full text does not contain this section.