Martin and Centrelink

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2003] AATA 629

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)           No A2002/409

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE  DIVISION		)
Re		ANN MARTIN

Applicant

And CENTRELINK

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Mr G A Mowbray

Date19 May 2003

PlaceCanberra

Decision For reasons given orally the Tribunal affirms the decision under review, being Centrelink's decision of 24 October 2002.

..................(sgd)......................

Member

2.       A previous request on 19 July 2002 to which Centrelink had not yet responded made clear that Mrs Martin’s request included access to

“Computer based audit trails of staff accesses to my records.”

3. On 16 October 2002 Mrs Martin was given full access to all requested documents, both paper and electronic, except for one folio on her files and a Customer Record Access Monitor (CRAM) system report, the latter being exempted under paragraphs 40(1)(a), (c), (d) and (e) of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (“the Act”). There is no CRAM report held on Mrs Martin's files.

4.       Mrs Martin sought review on the bases that previous requests and accesses in the 1990s had included the supply of CRAM reports and that clients had implied rights to review information held by agencies and to seek explanation from any person who had accessed, created or altered their information.

5.       The original decision to refuse access to records from the CRAM system was affirmed on internal review on 24 October 2002.  On 28 October 2002 Mrs Martin sought review from the Tribunal

“I am making this application on the grounds that:

1. The said Computer Records Access Monitor (CRAM) Report of staff accesses and transactions applied to my personal data held by Centrelink forms part of my record as held by Centrelink as per Section 17 of the FIO Act.

2. I am seeking details of accesses to my data only and of no other person.

3. I have been freely granted access to similar information in the past by the former Department of Social Security and latterly Centrelink in the 1990’s.

4. That Centrelink's claims of withholding the said document under Section 40, is false and unlawful and the support of the precedent of Meschino and Centrelink (2002) AATA 627 does not apply in this case given item 3) above.

5. That Centrelink is interfering with my right to verify the accuracy of my data held by them, the testing of their administrative process in making decisions concerning myself based on my data, given that they had breached IPP’s 1, 7 and 8 of the Privacy Act in the mid 1990’s in relation to the privacy of my data as held by them.”

6.       The matter was heard on 19 May 2003.  Mrs Martin was represented by her husband, Mr Bernard Martin and Centrelink was represented by Mr David Perdon.  Oral reasons for decision were given on that day affirming the decision under review.  On 4 June 2003 the Tribunal received a request for written reasons for the decision from Mr Martin on his wife’s behalf pursuant…