Morris and Australian Information Commissioner (Freedom of information)
[2017] AATA 363
•22 March 2017
Morris and Australian Information Commissioner (Freedom of information) [2017] AATA 363 (22 March 2017)
Division:FREEDOM OF INFORMATION DIVISION
File Number: 2016/4876
Re:Ann Morris
APPLICANT
Australian Information CommissionerAnd
RESPONDENT
AndSecretary, Department of Employment
OTHER PARTY
DECISION
Tribunal:Senior Member CR Walsh
Date:22 March 2017
Place:Perth
The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
..........[Sgd]..............................................................
Senior Member CR Walsh
CATCHWORDS
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION – applicant declared a “vexatious applicant” by respondent – applicant repeatedly engaged in access actions – applicant’s repeated engagement involves an abuse of the process for the actions by unreasonably interfering with the operations of an agency – access actions engaged in by the applicant otherwise an abuse of the process for the actions – terms and conditions of declaration considered - decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Freedom of Information Act 1982 – s 3 – s 11(2) – s 15 – s 15(1) – s 15(2) – s 48 – s 89K – s 89K(1) – s 89(L) – s 89L(a)(i) – s 89L(a)(ii) – s 89L(1)(b) – s 89L(2) – s 89L(4) – s 89M – s 89M(1) – s 89M(2) – s 89N – s 93A – s 93A(2)
CASES
Francis and the Australian Information Commissioner (Freedom of Information) [2015] AATA 936
Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634
Re Sweeney and the Australian Information Commissioner & Ors [2014] AATA 531
Sweeney and Australian Information Commissioner and Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (Joined Party) [2014] AATA 531
SECONDARY MATERIALS
Freedom of Information Guidelines, Version 1.3, December 2016 – Pt 12
Macquarie Dictionary, Sixth Edition, Macquarie Dictionary Publishers Pty Ltd, Sydney, Australia
REASONS FOR DECISION
Senior Member CR Walsh
22 March 2017
INTRODUCTION
On 31 August 2016, the Australian Information Commissioner (Information Commissioner) declared Ms Morris a “vexatious applicant” pursuant to s 89K(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act). Ms Morris seeks review of that decision.[1]
[1] The Secretary, Department of Employment is another party to these proceedings and agrees with the Information Commissioner’s position that the decision under review in this case should be affirmed: “Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions of the Department of Employment”, dated 20 January 2017, at [12].
FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Between 20 September 2014 and 10 August 2016, Ms Morris engaged in 67 separate freedom of information (FOI) access actions with the Department of Employment (Department) under the FOI Act. These comprise:
·48 annotation or amendment applications;
·13 requests for access to documents;
·3 internal review applications; and
·3 Information Commissioner review applications.
A summary of these access actions is provided in “Annexure A” to these Reasons for Decision.
On 14 May 2015, the Department advised Ms Morris that the volume and nature of her access actions were having a detrimental impact on the Department's resources. It advised her that unless she modified her request pattern going forward it would seek a vexatious application declaration against her. The Department proposed various ways Ms Morris could modify her request pattern to avoid it seeking a declaration.
The Department identified in its submissions to the Information Commissioner that processing Ms Morris’s access applications took in excess of 384 hours, which is the equivalent to one officer working full time in excess of ten weeks. The Department contended that this was excessive, and disproportionate to the reasonable exercise of an individual’s right to access under the FOI Act.
Between 19 December 2014 and 19 July 2016, Ms Morris also made 37 enquiries to the Department's “Information Law Team” which were not access actions. A majority of these enquiries related to access actions that were being or had been processed by the Department. A summary of these enquiries is provided in “Attachment B” to these Reasons for Decision.
Ms Morris also made one additional application for annotation on 13 August 2016.
On 10 February 2016, the Department applied to the Information Commissioner to have Ms Morris declared a “vexatious applicant” pursuant s 89K of the FOI Act on the following grounds:
Grounds for declaration
9.Subsection 89L(1) of the FOI Act states that the Information Commissioner may make a vexatious applicant declaration in relation to a person if the information Commissioner is satisfied that:
· The person has repeatedly engaged in access actions; and
· The repeated engagement involves an abuse of the process for the access action.
10.Subsection 89L(2) of the FOI Act states that a person engages in an ‘access action’ if they make a request (i.e. for access to documents), an application under s 48 of the FOI Act (i.e. for amendment or annotation), an application for internal review, or an IC review application.
11.Paragraph 89L(4)(b) of the FOI Act explains that ‘abuse of process for an access action’ includes, but is not limited to, ‘unreasonably interfering with the operations of an agency’.
12.Ms Morris has repeatedly engaged in access actions and the Department contends that this repeated engagement involves an abuse of the process for the access actions as it unreasonably interferes with the operation of the Department.
(emphasis added)
On 17 August 2016, the Department advised the Information Commissioner that Ms Morris had engaged in a further 10 access actions since the Department had applied to the Information Commissioner to have Ms Morris declared a “vexatious applicant”, and that 8 of those were received after Ms Morris had been officially notified that the Department had made an application for a vexatious applicant declaration.
On 31 August 2016, the Information Commissioner made the following “Declaration” in relation to Ms Morris:
Declaration
In accordance with s 89K(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the FOI Act), I declare [Ms Morris] to be a vexatious application on the basis that she has repeatedly engaged in access actions that involve an abuse of process.
I make this declaration in the following terms:
1.For a period of twelve (12) months commencing on the date of this declaration [31 August 2016], the Department of Employment (the Department) is not required to consider:
· Any request by [Ms Morris] under s 15 of the FOI Act for access to a document; or
· Any application by [Ms Morris] under s 48 of the FOI Act for amendment or annotation,
where the request or application is received within three months of another request or application made by [Ms Morris] under the FOI Act.
2.The Department is not required to consider any request or application by [Ms Morris] which requires consideration of a document or set of documents that have previously been the subject of a decision under the FOI Act.
(Declaration)
On 14 September 2016, Ms Morris applied to the Tribunal for a review of the Declaration decision.[2] Ms Morris’s stated “Reasons for Application” are as follows:
I have been trying to clear my name of numberous (sic.) non-qualified and kept confidential from me diagnosis place on the up to now inaccessible ESS WEB. I will have to make multiple applications dealing with this one web.
[2] Section 89N of the FOI Act provides that an application may be made to the Tribunal for a review of a decision by the Information Commissioner to make a “vexatious applicant declaration”.
CONSIDERATION
Section 89K of the FOI the Act provides:
Vexatious applicants - declaration
(1)The Information Commissioner may, by written instrument (a vexatious applicant declaration), declare a person to be a vexatious applicant.
Note 1: Section 89L sets out the grounds on which a declaration may be made.
…
(2)The Information Commissioner may make a declaration:
(a) on the application of an agency or Minister; or
(b) on the Information Commissioner’s initiative.
(3)If an agency or Minister has applied for a declaration, the agency or Minister has the onus of establishing that the Information Commissioner should make the declaration.
(4)The Information Commissioner must, as soon as practicable, give written notice to the person in relation to whom the vexatious applicant declaration is made.
(emphasis added)
Section 89L of the FOI Act provides:
Vexatious applicants – grounds for declaration
(1)The Information Commissioner may make a vexatious applicant declaration in relation to a person only if the Information Commissioner is satisfied of any of the following:
(a) that:
(i)the person has repeatedly engaged in access actions; and
(ii)the repeated engagement involves an abuse of the process for the access action;
(b)a particular access action in which the person engages involves, or would involve, an abuse of the process for that access action;
(c)a particular access action on which the person engages would be manifestly unreasonable.
(3)The Information Commissioner must not make a declaration in relation to a person without giving the person an opportunity to make written or oral submissions.
(emphasis added)
Section 89M of the FOI Act provides:
Vexatious applicants – effect of declaration
(1)A vexatious applicant declaration has effect in accordance with the terms and conditions stated in the declaration.
(2)Without limiting subsection (1), a vexatious applicant declaration in relation to a person may provide that:
(a)an agency or Minister may refuse to consider any of the following if made by the person without the written permission of the Information Commissioner:
(i) a request;
(ii) an application under section 48 (amendment of records);
(iii) an application for internal review; and
(b)the Information Commissioner may refuse to consider an IC review application made by the person.
The Information Commissioner has issued guidelines about the operation of the FOI Act, titled “Guidelines issued by the Australian Information Commissioner under s 93A of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth)” (FOI Guidelines). Section 93A(2) of the FOI Act requires Ministers and agencies (and, it follows, the Tribunal on review) to have regard to the guidelines when performing a function or exercising a power under the FOI Act. In any event, the Tribunal should apply lawful Ministerial policy unless there are cogent reasons not to: Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634 at 644-645 per Brennan J.
Relevantly, Part 12 of the FOI Guidelines (Version 1.3, December 2016) deals with “Vexatious Applicant Declarations”.
The FOI Guidelines provide:
General considerations
12.7A declaration has the practical effect of preventing a person from exercising an important legal right conferred by the FOI Act. For that reason, a declaration will not lightly be made, and an agency that applies for a declaration must establish a clear and convincing need for a declaration.
12.8On the other hand, the power conferred on the Information Commissioner to make a declaration is an important element of the balance in the FOI Act between conferring a right of access to government documents while ensuring that access requests do not interfere unreasonably with agency operations. This is apparent from the terms of s 89L, which express a principle that the legal right of access should not be abused by conduct that harasses or intimidates agency staff, unreasonably interferes with the operations of agencies, circumvents court imposed restrictions on document access, or is manifestly unreasonable.
12.9The power to make a declaration is discretionary. In addition to considering the grounds for a declaration specified in s 89L, the Information Commissioner may consider other relevant features of a person's access actions or FOI administration in the agency that has applied for a declaration.
12.10Aspects of the FOI Act that must be taken into account in balancing the interests of agencies and an FOI applicant include:
· the objects of the FOI Act; to give the Australian community access to information held by government (s 3(1) and promote Australia's representative democracy by:
o increasing public participation in government processes
o increasing scrutiny, discussion, comment and review of government's activities (s 3(2))
· the Act specifies that government-held information is a national resource, to be managed for public purposes (s 3(3))
· the lowest reasonable costs objective of the Act: the functions and powers under the Act are to be performed and exercised, as far as possible, to facilitate and promote public access to information, promptly and at the lowest reasonable cost (s 3(4))
· the Act provides an important avenue for individuals to seek access to their own personal information (s 15(1)) and amendment of that information (s48(l))
· the Act does not limit the number of FOI requests that a person can make in a given period, nor the number or type of documents that a person can seek in an individual request to an agency that is subject to the Act
· the formal requirements for making a request are minimal and allow a person to make a request by email without payment of an application fee (s 15(2))
· a person's right of access is not affected by any reason they give for seeking access, or an agency's belief as to their reasons for seeking access (s 11(2))
· no charge is payable if an applicant requests access to a document that contains their own personal information.
(emphasis added and footnotes omitted)
Has Ms Morris engaged in an “access action” (s 89L(2) of the FOI Act)?
16. Section 89L(2) of the FOI Act provides:
(2)A person engages in an access action if the person does any of the following:
(a) makes a request;
(b) makes an application under section 48;
(c) makes an application for internal review;
(d) makes an IC review application.
As stated in paragraph 2 above, between 20 September 2014 and 10 August 2016, Ms Morris engaged in 67 separate “access actions” within the meaning of s 89L(2) of the FOI Act. These “access actions” comprise 48 annotation or amendment applications, 13 requests for access to documents, 3 internal review applications and 3 Information Commissioner review applications.
Has Ms Morris “repeatedly engaged in access actions” (s 89L(1)(a)(i) of the FOI Act)?
The term “repeatedly” is not defined in the FOI Act and, consequently, takes its ordinary meaning. The Macquarie Dictionary[3] defines the word “repeated” as follows:
repeated adj. done, made, or said again and again: repeated attempts. – repeatedly, adv.
[3] Macquarie Dictionary, Sixth Edition, Macquarie Dictionary Publishers Pty Limited, Sydney, Australia, at 1245.
Paragraph 12.17 of the FOI Guidelines provides:
12.17There is no fixed number of access actions required to establish a pattern of repeated requests. Whether such a pattern exists will depend in part on the nature of the abuse of process that is said to be involved. For example, if it is asserted that a person is repeating a request that has earlier been processed and decided by an agency, or is harassing agency employees, a small number of requests may establish a pattern. On the other hand, if it is asserted that a person has repeatedly made different requests that in combination unreasonably interfere with an agency's operations, a higher number of requests may be required to establish a pattern of repeated requests.
(footnotes omitted)
The number of applications made by Ms Morris demonstrates that she has established a pattern of engaging in numerous and repetitive access actions over less than a two year period: refer to Annexure A and Annexure B attached to these Reasons for Decision. For the purposes of s 89L(1)(a)(i) of the FOI Act, the Tribunal considers that Ms Morris’s access actions can be classified as having “repeatedly engaged in access actions”.
Did the repeated engagement in access actions involve an “abuse of process” (s 89L(1)(a)(ii))?
Section 89L(4) of the FOI Act provides:
(4) In this section:
“abuse of the process for an action” includes, but is not limited to, the following:
(a)harassing or intimidation an individual or an employee of an agency;
(b) unreasonably interfering with the operations of an agency;
(c)seeking to use the Act for the purpose of circumventing restrictions on access to a document (or documents) imposed by a court.
(emphasis added)
The relevant “abuse of process” identified by the Information Commissioner in Ms Morris’s case is unreasonable interference with the operations of an agency, namely the Department.
Paragraph 12.27 of the FOI Guidelines provides the following list of factors that “may” be considered when deciding if there is a pattern of repeated access actions that unreasonably interfere with an agency's operations:
·the total number of a person’s access actions to the agency in a specific period, and in particular, whether a high number of actions has led to a substantial or prolonged processing burden on the agency or a burden that is excessive and disproportionate to a reasonable exercise by an applicant of the right to engage in access actions;
·the impact of the person’s access actions on FOI administration in the agency, and in particular, whether a substantial workload impact has arisen from the nature of a person’s access actions, such as multiple FOI requests that are poorly-framed or for documents that are non-existent, requests for documents that have earlier been provided or to which access was refused, or requests that are difficult to discern and distinguish from other complaints a person has against the agency. It is nevertheless important to bear in mind that an individual, who may lack both expertise in dealing with government and a close knowledge of an agency’s records system, may make access requests that are poorly framed, overlapping or cause inconvenience to an agency;
·the impact of the person’s access actions on other work in the agency, and in particular, whether specialist or senior staff have to be redeployed from other tasks to deal with FOI requests, or the requests have caused distress to staff or raised security concerns that required separate action;
·whether the agency has used other provisions of the FOI Act to lessen the impact of the person’s access actions on its operations;
·the size of the agency and the resources that it can reasonably allocate to FOI processing;
·whether the person has cooperated reasonably with the agency to enable efficient FOI processing, including whether the person’s access actions portray an immoderate prolongation of a separate grievance the person has against the agency or the continued pursuit of a matter that has already been settled through proceedings in another dispute resolution forum; and
·whether deficiencies in an agency’s FOI processing or general administration have contributed to or might explain a person’s access actions.
Further, paragraph 12.28 of the FOI Guidelines provides:
12.28The reference to 'unreasonable interference with agency operations' in s 89L(4) should be read alongside a similar phrase in s 24AA(l)(a)(i) for deciding whether a practical refusal reason exists in relation to an FOI request (namely, 'would substantially and unreasonably divert the resources of the agency from its other operations', see Part 3 of these Guidelines). Both sections raise similar but not identical issues. The practical refusal power applies to a single FOI request (or two or more similar requests) that will have an unreasonable workload impact on an agency; whereas the vexatious applicant declaration power is more usually focused on whether the pattern of an applicant's behaviour may be interfering unreasonably with an agency's operations.
(footnotes omitted)
As stated above, Ms Morris has engaged in 67 access actions in a period less than two years. It is not in dispute that:
·the number of access actions made by Ms Morris in the 2014/2015 year represented almost 20% of the applications received by the Department in that year;
·the officers within the Department have expended 384 hours to process Ms Morris’s access actions, representing the equivalent to one officer working full time in excess of ten weeks; and
·these hours does not include additional resources expended by the Department's “Information Law Team” to process the additional requests submitted by Ms Morris.
The Tribunal finds that Ms Morris repeated engagement in access actions constitutes an unreasonable exercise of an individual's right of access under the FOI Act.
Ms Morris has also indicated that she intends to continue with this number of access actions in the future. Therefore, without a declaration, it is probable that a similar number of the Department's FOI resources would be dedicated to the processing of requests from Ms Morris going forward.
Ms Morris acknowledged that the requests and applications submitted by her are often embedded in lengthy emails that lack specificity and that her requests can be repetitive in nature and frequently relate to the same facts and issues.
Ms Morris’s annotation applications are particularly onerous, and often involving the annotation of various departmental records with multiple documents.
The evidence shows that the Department contacted Ms Morris to advise her that the number and complexities of her applications were having a detrimental impact on the Department's resources and that it offered Ms Morris a range of suggestions but she did not agree to withdraw overlapping applications or modify any of her requests. In this regard, the “Statement of Facts Issues and Contentions of the Department of Employment”, dated 20 January 2017 (Department’s Statement), states:
30.The Department has attempted to engage with the Applicant to enable more efficient processing of her FOI requests and applications and therefore reduce the workload created by her access actions. However, the Applicant has not cooperated reasonably with the Department.
31.In particular, on 14 May 2015 the Department contacted the Applicant to advise her that the volume and number of her applications (40 access actions between 20 September 2014 and 11 May 2015) was having a detrimental impact on the Department’s resources (Attachment C to T4). The Department advised the Applicant that if she continued to make applications in this manner that it may have to consider seeking a vexatious applicant declaration. The Department made a range of suggestions to the Applicant that might assist in avoiding this outcome, including:
olimiting applications to include only the information required;
othat all annotations to a particular document be sought in one application (rather than making multiple applications in relation to the same document); and
othat the Applicant waits until one application is finalised before submitting another.
32. The Department also suggested that the Applicant might consider withdrawing any or all of the seven ongoing applications that were being processed by the Department at the time of the letter. The Applicant did not agree to withdraw any of her requests and between 14 May 2015 and 10 February 2016 (when the Department applied to the IC for the Declaration) the Applicant also engaged in a further 24 access actions. These further access actions did not employ any of the above suggestions that the Department had made that might reduce the workload required to process the Applicant’s access actions.
Ms Morris does not dispute the burden of her multiple access actions on the Department but feels that she must continue to submit them to try and correct what she sees as 'the enormous inaccuracy of the record system”.[4] Ms Morris submits that her continuous applications are motivated by her intense desire to correct her health and work capacity information.[5] Ms Morris explains that she has been attempting to correct these records to her satisfaction for 25 years and that the incorrect information about her capacity to work has prevented her from obtaining ongoing employment.[6] Ms Morris has also argued that the number of applications she has submitted is high because some applications were refused on technicalities that she has needed to correct and some applications were ignored by the Department.[7]
[4] Ms Morris’s submissions, dated 7 December 2016 (tendered as Exhibit 2).
[5] Ms Morris’s submissions, dated 7 December 2016 (tendered as Exhibit 2).
[6] Ms Morris’s submissions, dated 7 December 2016 (tendered as Exhibit 2).
[7] Ms Morris’s submissions, dated 7 December 2016 (tendered as Exhibit 2).
As stated above (in paragraph 20), paragraph 12.17 of the FOI Guidelines identifies that there is no fixed number of access actions required to establish a pattern of repeated requests. As stated above (in paragraph 26), the applications submitted by Ms Morris constitute a significant percentage of the overall FOI processing workload of the Department. The high volume of requests, repetitive nature of the content and the poor framing of the applications are all factors that can, and should, be considered to have contributed significantly to the processing burden of the Department: refer to paragraph 12.27 of the FOI Guidelines in paragraph 24 above. See also Re Sweeney and Australian Information Commissioner & Ors [2014] AATA 531; Sweeney and Australian Information Commissioner and Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (Joined Party) [2014] AATA 531.
The nature and pattern of Ms Morris’s enquiries are aptly described in the Department’s Statement, as follows:
27.The Applicant’s access actions are generally difficult to interpret due to their poorly-framed nature. This adds to the excessive time required to process her access actions and the resulting impact on the Department’s workload. Much of the Applicant’s correspondence with the Department is long and poorly-framed, containing extraneous content and attachments such as detailed explanations of medical history, allegations of fraudulent records created and held by various organisations and Government agencies and/or copies of the Applicant’s resume. The particulars of an access action are often buried within this material and this makes it difficult to ascertain the content of the access action and whether the Applicant has met the requirements for access, amendment or annotation under the FOI Act.
28.In some instances the Applicant had made multiple requests within one piece of correspondence (for example, entry 4 in attachment A to T7) or made a single request over multiple emails (for example, the request of 24 May 2016 consisted of 4 emails and 10 attachments). The Applicant’s correspondence also frequently repeats comments and themes from previous correspondence (for example, between 5 and 8 January 2015, Ms Morris submitted eight applications for annotation of the same or similar documents to her Centrelink records).
29.The Applicant also uses random capitalisation and bolding of text in her correspondence. This kind of formatting would generally be expected to be used to emphasise or draw attention to a particular point, but the Applicant’s use of it in her correspondence is apparently arbitrary and irrelevant to the application, leading to confusion. These factors further add to the time required and difficulty of interpreting the Applicant’s access actions.
In the Tribunal’s view, the pattern of Ms Morris’s repeated access actions constitute “unreasonable interference with the operations of an agency” (i.e. the Department) for the purpose of s 89L(4)(b) of the FOI Act and, it follows, represent as “abuse of process of an action” within the meaning of s 89L(4) of the Act and for the purpose of s 89L(1)(a) of the FOI Act.
Did the access actions Ms Morris engaged in otherwise involve an “abuse of process” (s 89L(1)(b) of the FOI Act)?
The Tribunal finds that some requests made by Ms Morris are an abuse of process in and of themselves in that a number of Ms Morris’s access actions revisit matters that had previously been decided without offering further evidence or a reasonable explanation as to why the request should be reconsidered. Further, it is clear form Annexure A to these Reasons for Decision, Ms Morris repeatedly requested access to documents that do not exist, despite the Department advising her as to why records cannot be found or do not exist.
Ms Morris acknowledges that she has submitted multiple similar access actions. Ms Morris submits, however, that she generally finds communications from the Department to be difficult to decipher, repetitive and obtuse.[8]
[8] Ms Morris’s submissions, dated 7 December 2016 (tendered as Exhibit 2).
An “abuse of the process for an access action” is not defined in the FOI Act except in limited ways set out in s 89L(4) of the FOI Act: refer to paragraph 22 above. It is clear from the phrase “includes, but not limited to”, in s 84L(4) of the FOI Act, that this definition is not intended to confine the concept of “abuse of process for an access action”.
In Francis and the Australian Information Commissioner (Freedom of Information) [2015] AATA 936 (Francis), SM Manetta said:
41. In my opinion, in the absence of new factual material, an agency is entitled to treat an application for amendment of a record that it has considered and rejected on four prior occasions as an abuse of the process for the statutory access action under s 48 of the FOI Act. This follows a fortiori, in my opinion, where statutory rights of review have been pursued as is the case here. I would also conclude that the application “would be manifestly unreasonable” in this circumstance (cf s 89L(1)(c)).
42. Having received multiple rejections, an applicant who persists must, at some point, become “vexatious”. I do not say that point is necessarily reached as early as the second application, but I am satisfied that it was reached here on Mr Francis’s fifth application if not earlier. The statutory scheme under the FOI Act includes rights of review that are available to be pursued and, in the normal course, should be pursued if an applicant is dissatisfied with a departmental response. The scheme envisages an application, a departmental response, and the exercise of review rights; but it does not authorise multiple applications on the same facts.
As submitted by the Department, a number of Ms Morris’s access actions re-agitate matters already decided or actioned without offering any reasonable explanation or new evidence.[9] In the Department’s Statement (at [36]), the Department provides the following examples of this:
…
o Despite being repeatedly advised that the online records of Jobfind Maddington did not exist and that her requested annotations had been made on the JSCI Report dated 22 May 2004 (as the only relevant document remaining on the Department’s system), the Applicant repeatedly requested substantially similar annotations to her Jobfind Maddington ‘online records’, all disputing the diagnosis of schizophrenia (see entries 16, 17, 22, 23, 27, 33 and 35 in Attachment A to T7).
o On multiple occasions, the Applicant sought to have two statutory declarations ‘annotated’ to her Departmental file (see entries 18 – 20 in Attachment A to T7) in relation to diagnoses of medical conditions that were allegedly incorrectly included on her file. In each instance, the Applicant was advised that her requests did not meet the requirements for annotation under the FOI Act and that the Department had nonetheless placed the documents on her file.
o The Applicant made three requests for access to copies of her record held by Mission Australia, Armadale, and The Salvation Army Employment Plus, Armadale (see entries 25, 26 and 28 in Attachment A to T7). The Department has no records indicating that the Applicant ever attended those providers.
o The Applicant raised concerns in relation to the identity and qualifications of a psychologist listed on a copy of an ESAt Report and subsequently requested the Department annotate a statement in that regard. The Department advised the Applicant that her request did not meet the requirements for annotation under the FOI Act and provided further information in relation to the psychologist’s name for the Applicant’s reference (see entry 56 in Attachment A to T7). Following this, the Applicant requested that letters to the Psychologist Board and AHPRA be ‘annotated’ to the record (see entry 65 in Attachment A to T7).
[9] Statement of Facts Issues and Contentions of the Department, dated 20 January 2017, at [36].
The Tribunal finds that Ms Morris’s pattern of access actions can be characterised as manifestly unreasonable by their unnecessary and unjustified repetition and can be properly labelled as “vexatious”. The Tribunal finds that this characterisation applies in Ms Morris’s case: Francis.
Terms and conditions of the Declaration
Section 89M(1) of the FOI Act provides:
A vexatious applicant declaration has effect in accordance with the terms and conditions stated in the declaration.
Section 89M(2) of the FOI Act provides that a vexatious applicant declaration may include such terms that an agency may refuse to consider a request, an application under s 48 of the FOI Act or an application for internal review unless the applicant has written permission of the Information Commissioner.
Consistent with these provisions the Declaration has the practical effect that until 31 August 2017 the Department is not required to consider any request under s 15 of the FOI Act or an application under s 48 of the FOI Act, by Ms Morris, where it is made within three months of a previous request/application or where it requires the consideration of a document or documents that have previously been the subject of a decision under the FOI Act.
The Tribunal considers, as submitted by the Department in the Department’s Statement (at [41]), that:
…these are reasonable and proportionate terms which balance the Applicant’s rights to access and correct information held by the held by the Department with the ned to reduce the substantial resource impacts and processing burden of the Applicant’s access actions.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal considers the terms of the Declaration to be entirely appropriate and well-founded in Ms Morris’s particular case:
·The FOI Act provides individuals with an important right to information. The Declaration balances this individual right with the proper and efficient functioning of the Department and use of Department’s resources;
·The Declaration does not altogether extinguish Ms Morris’s rights to access information under the FOI Act, rather they are limited and channelled for a specified period of time;
·Ms Morris has a history of repeated and confusing requests. Ms Morris has also indicated that she has no intention of stopping or limiting her requests under the FOI Act. The Declaration made, quite appropriately seeks to focus Ms Morris’s requests, which in turn may have the result of Ms Morris achieving her desired outcome from a particular request;
·It affords the FOI Act an opportunity to function as it is intended, without unreasonable interfering with the operations of the Department. That is, Ms Morris may make a request, the Department can finalise the request and Ms Morris then has review rights if not satisfied with the decision on the request;
·The Declaration is not unduly harsh, nor does it impose an overlay of supervisions by the Information Commissioner;
·The Declaration does not limit the amount of documents sought or annotations made by Ms Morris, rather it aims to encourage Ms Morris to truncate and focus her requests so that it can be easier to process by the Department; and
·The Declaration is for a fixed period of 12 months, such that Ms Morris’s rights are not restricted indefinitely.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
I certify that the preceding 47 (forty seven) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member CR Walsh
........[Sgd]................................................................
Administrative Assistant
Dated: 22 March 2017
Date of hearing: 14 March 2017 Applicant: In person Representative for the
Respondent:Mr L Holcombe Solicitors for the Respondent:
HWL Ebsworth Lawyers
Counsel for the Other Party:
Mr J Davidson
“Annexure A”
# Date Type Request Outcome Overlap/other issues 1 20 September 2014 Request for access Seeking re-issue of records annotated by the Department in 2011. 1 October 2014: Three documents released in full. 2 1 October 2014 Request for amendment Seeking correction of entry in resume within the Jobsearch system. 2 October 2014: Applicant referred to the Department of Social Services, including a link to that department’s FOI page. 3 5 October 2014 Request for access Seeking access to a copy of a letter sent to the applicant two or three years ago. 9 October 2014: Applicant referred to the Department of Human Services, including a link to that department’s FOI page. 4 4 November 2014 Request for access and annotation Seeking records of Forrest Personnel and seeking amendment of records held on the Jobsearch system. 10 November 2015: Request transferred to the Department of Social Services in accordance with s16 of the FOI Act. 5 20 November 2014 Request for access Seeking access to any documents held by Jobfind, Maddington that contain the diagnosis of ‘Schizophrenia’. 19 December 2014: Primary decision made to release on document (JSCI Report, dated 22 May 2004) in full. 6 19 December 2014 Request for internal review Seeking internal review of the Department’s decision of 19 December 2014. 19 January 2015: Internal review decision made affirming the primary decision. 7 25 December 2014 Request for access Requesting access to records of Workrite Employment Agency. 9 January 2015: Request transferred to the Department of Social Services in accordance with s16 of the FOI Act. 8 5 January 2015 Request for OAIC review Seeking review of the Department’s decision of 19 December 2014. 15 April 2015: OAIC notified the Department that it had made its decision under subsection 54W(a)(i) of the FOI Act; that the application was misconceived. 9 6 January 2015 Request for access Requesting access to records of Workrite Employment Agency. Also following up on annotations requested of Forest Personnel file. 7 January 2015: Correspondence sent to the applicant listing the requests that the Department were processing at the time and that this did not include any annotations.
9 January 2015: Request transferred to the Department of Social Services in accordance with the s16 of the FOI Act.
Repeat request (see entry 7). 10 7 January 2015 Request for annotation Seeking annotation of academic record, references, medical certificates and a number of statements to her Workrite records. 9 January 2015: Request transferred to the Department of Social Services in accordance with s16 of the FOI Act. 11 7 January 2015 Request for annotation Seeking annotation of medical certificates, business certificates, references and a statement to her Workrite records. 9 January 2015: Request transferred to the Department of Social Services in accordance with s16 of the FOI Act. 12 7 January 2015 Request for annotation Seeking annotation of technical certificates to her Workrite records. 9 January 2015:
Request transferred to the Department of Social Services in accordance with s16 of the FOI Act.13 8 January 2015 Request for annotation Seeking annotation of medical certificates and statutory declarations to her Workrite records. 9 January 2015: Request transferred to the Department of Social Services in accordance with s16 of the FOI Act. 14 8 January 2015 Request for annotation Seeking annotation of medical certificates and statutory declarations to her Workrite records. 9 January 2015: Request transferred to the Department of Social Services in accordance with s16 of the FOI Act. 15 8 January 2015 Request for annotation Seeking annotation of medical statement lodged with Centrelink on 24 December 2014. 9 January 2015: Request transferred to the Department of Social Services in accordance with s16 of the FOI Act. 16 19 January 2015 Request for annotation Seeking annotation of the JSCI report released to her under FOI on 19 December 2014 (see entry 5) – “Such report (although it is meant to be) was never discussed with me, nor disclosed to me and was totally without my agreement. I was not made aware of the entry/diagnosis by Jobfind Maddington.” 18 February 2015: Annotation completed by the Department and communicated to Ms Morris. 17 28 January 2015 Request for annotation Seeking additional annotation of the JSCI report released to her under FOI on 19 December 2014 (see entry 5) – “Having previously investigated Department Records the entry was made completely independently of Centrelink/Department of Social Security/DEEWR, Department of Family and Community Services, Disability Services and Australian Military records. At that time I was not aware of any such diagnosis made LEGALLY within this State and was obviously NOT DISCLOSING/AGREEING with such and the diagnosis appears to have ORIGINATED with my consultant at Jobfind Maddington.” 18 February 2015: Annotation completed by the Department communicated to Ms Morris. Sought annotation to the same document as requested on 19 January 2015 (JSCI Report, dated 22 May 2004) (see entry 16). 18 16 February 2015 Request for annotation Seeking to have letter and two statutory declarations annotated to her Departmental file, and the files of Jobfind and Communicare. 12 March 2015: Ms Morris advised that her request did not meet the requirements for annotation under the FOI Act, however that the Department had placed the documents as requested on her Departmental file and the files of Jobfind and Communicare. 19 2 March 2015 Request for annotation Seeking to have two statutory declarations placed on her Departmental file. 12 March 2015: Department advised Ms Morris that her request did not meet the requirements for annotation under the FOI Act (and included information on how to make a valid request), however that the Department had placed the documents requested on her Departmental file and the files of Jobfind and Communicare. This request was a repeat of part of a previous request, dated 16 February 2015 (see entry 18). 20 8 March 2015 Request for annotation Seeking to have three statutory declarations and a copy of an FOI request that Ms Morris had submitted to the Department of Social Services, as well as multiple medical certificates, annotated to her Departmental file and the files of Jobfind and Communicare. 12 March 2015:
The Department responded to Ms Morris that her request did not meet the requirements for annotation under the FOI Act (and included information on how to make a valid request), however that the Department had placed the documents requested on her Departmental file and the files of Jobfind and Communicare.Two of the statutory declarations are the same as Ms Morris sought to have annotated to her Departental file and the files of Jobfind and Communicare on 16 February 2015 (see entry 18), and 2 March 2015 (see entry 19) 21 20 March 2015 Request for access Seeking access to documents relating to an appointment with Communicare in 2009. 30 March 2015:
The Department responded to Ms Morris advising her that the Department had no record of her being a client of Communicare in 2009 and therefore the Department had no documents in relation to her request.22 8 April 2015 Request for annotation Requesting annotation of the online record of Jobfind Maddington referring to schizophrenia – “the diagnosis was made anonymously by an unknown and unidentified person without my knowledge.” 7 May 2015:
The Department advised Ms Morris that the on-line record (i.e. JSCI Report, dated 22 May 2004 – being the only Jobfind record referring to the diagnosis of schizophrenia) is unable to be annotated due to the system functionality and therefore the physical copy held by Jobfind was annotated.This is the same document request for annotated on 19 January 2015 (see entry 16) and 28 January 2015 (see entry 17). 23 9 April 2015 Request for annotation Requesting annotation of the online record of Jobfind Maddington referring the schizophrenia – “the diagnosis of SCHIZOPHRENIA was made unlawfully, unknown to me and unrevealed to me, medically unsupported, non-qualified, unlisted by an Government Department, proven a false claim, made anonymously, and passed on as not only slander and libel but defamation to others including prospective employers causing harm.” 7 May 2015:
The Department advised Ms Morris that the on-line record (i.e. JSCI Report, dated 22 May 2004 – being the only Jobfind record referring to the diagnosis of schizophrenia) is unable to be annotated due to the system functionality and therefore the physical copy held by Jobfind was annotated.This is the same document as was requested for annotated on 19 January 2015 (see entry 16), 28 January 2015 (see entry 17) and 8 April 2015 (see entry 22). 24 11 April 2015 Request for annotation Requesting annotation of two statutory declarations and a statement to the online records of Commonwealth Employment Services. Statement to read: “typing tenosenovitis RSI is completely and permanently cured with ORUDIS SR 200 and that such cure has been known to physicians since the Great Depression when my Great Uncle was a Doctor in the British Isle.” 11 May 2015:
The Department made a primary decision to refuse to annotate the records as requested on the basis that the Department was not satisfied that the documents to which Ms Morris sought annotation were ‘documents of an agency’ as required by section 51B(1) of the FOI Act.25 27 April 2015 Request for access Seeking access to copies of her record from Mission Australia, Armadale. 27 May 2015:
The Department advised Ms Morris that the Department held no documents in relation to her request.26 27 April 2015 Request for access Seeking access to copies of her records from [The Salvation Army] Employment Plus, Armadale. 27 May 2015:
The Department advised Ms Morris that the Department held no documents in relation to her request.27 27 April 2015 Request for annotation Requesting annotation of two Statutory Declarations and a statement to the online records of Jobfind Maddington to indicate that she does not have disabilities as listed against her name by Government Departments. 27 May 2015:
The Department responded to Ms Morris advising that the records she is seeking annotation do not exist as the Jobfind office had closed. Only certain documents remain on the Department’s system, such as her JSCI report, dated 22 May 2004. The Department also reminded Ms Morris of the requirements for seeking annotation under the FOI Act.28 4 May 2015 Request for access Seeking access to copies of her records from Mission Australia and [The Salvation Army] Employment Plus. 27 May 2015:
The Department advised Ms Morris that the Department held no documents in relation to her request.Repeated request (see entries 25 and 26). 29 8 May 2015 Request for annotation Seeking annotation of a statement to the online/computer records of CRS. 20 May 2015:
Response sent to Ms Morris advising that the request was not a valid request for annotation under the FOI Act and providing the requirements for seeking annotation under the FOI Act.30 8 May 2015 Request for annotation Seeking annotation of a statement to the online/computer records of Options, Cannington and ORS Armadale. 20 May 2015:
Response sent to Ms Morris advising that the request was not a valid request for annotation under the FOI Act and providing the requirements for seeking annotation under the FOI Act.31 11 May 2015 Request for internal review Seeking internal review of the Department’s decision of 11 April 2015 (refer to entry 24). 10 June 2015:
The Department made the internal review decision, upholding the primary decision not to annotate documents relating to the Commonwealth Employment Service on the basis that they are not ‘documents of an agency’.32 20 May 2015 Request for annotation Seeking annotation of a statement to ORS and CRS records, online or otherwise. 3 June 2015:
Response sent to Ms Morris advising that her request was invalid and providing the requirements for seeking annotation under the FOI Act.33 27 May 2015 Request for annotation Seeking annotation of Jobfind online record referring to schizophrenia. 11 June 2015:
The Department made a primary decision to annotate the JSCI Report, dated 22 May 2004 – being the only Jobfind document referring to schizophrenia.This is the same document as was requested for annotation on 19 January 2015 (see entry 16), 28 January 2015 (see entry 17), 8 April 2015 (see entry 22) and 9 April 2015 (see entry 23). 34 2 June 2015 Request for annotation Seeking annotation of records relating to CRS. 3 June 2015:
Response sent to Ms Morris providing details on how to apply for access or annotation and reminding her that for CRS related documents Ms Morris should contact the Department of Human Services.35 3 June 2015 Request for annotation Seeking annotation of the online/computer records of Jobfind Maddington and of Department of Social Services records. 12 June 2015:
Response sent to Ms Morris reminding her that the online records of Jobfind do not exist and therefore cannot be annotated (see entry 27), and that she should contact the Department of Social Services in relation to documents held by them.Seeking annotation to the same online records as requested on 8 April 2015 (see entry 22), 9 April 2015 (see entry 23), 27 April 2015 (see entry 27) and 27 May 2015 (see entry 33). 36 3 June 2015 Request for annotation Seeking annotation of Department of Human Services documents. 10 June 2015:
The Department responded to Ms Morris, noting the information provided in her email and referring her to the Department of Human Services for any further action.37 5 September 2015 Request for amendment Seeking amendment of Employment Services Assessment Report, dated 30 March 2015. 8 September 2015:
The request was transferred to the Department of Human Services under section 51 of the FOI Act on the basis that the subject matter of the request was more closely connected with the functions of that Department.Ms Morris sought annotation to this document on 5 September 2015 (see entry 37), 24 October 2015 (see entry 41), 27 October 2015 (see entry 42), 15 January 2016 (see entry 56) and 28 January 2016 (see entry 57). 38 11 September 2015 Request for review (OAIC) Seeking review of the Department’s internal review decision of 10 June 0215 (see entry 31). 14 October 2015:
The Department was notified that you had decided to finalise Ms Morris’ request for review on the basis that Ms Morris’ application was misconceived.39 24 October 2015 Request for access Seeking access to all records held by the agency/network provider in relation to herself. 20 November 2015:
The Department advised Ms Morris of its intention to refuse her request under section 24 AB of the FOI Act on the basis that, in its current form, her request is likely to cause an unreasonable and substantial diversion to the Department’s resources. On the same day, Ms Morris revised the scope of her request.25 November 2015:
The Department made its primary decision to release 70 pages in full t Ms Morris, but to withhold 14 pages to be released in full to a psychologist of Ms Morris’ choice. Ms Morris has sought review of this decision (see entry 45).40 24 October 2015 Request for annotation Seeking annotation of Employment Services Assessment Report, dated 30 March 2015 along with PDF documents to the Department’s ‘relevant screens’. 10 November 2015:
Response sent to Ms advising that the request is invalid as it does not meet the requirements of section 51A of the FOI Act and providing the requirements for seeking annotation under the FOI Act.Ms Morris sought annotation t this document on 5 September 2015 (see entry 37), 24 October 2015 (see entry 41), 27 October 2015 (see entry 42), 15 January 2016 (see entry 56) and 28 January 2016 (see entry 57). 41 27 October 2015 Request for annotation Seeking annotation of Employment Services Report, dated 30 March 2015 along with PDF documents to the records of three organisations (Communicare, ORS and Employment Plus). 10 November 2015:
Response sent to Ms Morris advising that the request is invalid as it does not meet the requirements of section 51A of the FOI Act and providing the requirements for seeking annotation under the FOI Act.Ms Morris sought annotation to this document on 5 September 2015 (see entry 37), 24 October 2015 (see entry 41), 27 October 2015 (see entry 42), 15 January 2016 (see entry 56) and 28 January 2016 (see entry 57). 42 30 October 2015 Request for annotation Seeking annotation of a letter from the Department of Human Services and a resume to the Department’s ‘appropriate reports and screens’. 10 May 2015:
Response sent to Ms Morris advising that the request is invalid as it does not meet the requirements of section 51A of the FOI Act and providing the requirements for seeking annotation under the FOI Act.43 25 November 2015 Request for access Seeking access to any records held by Employment Services, Armadale in relation to herself. 24 December 2015:
Primary decision made to release 12 pages in full to Ms Morris.44 25 November 2015 Request for internal review Seeking internal review of the Department’s decision of 25 November 2015 (see entry 40). 24 December 2015:
Internal review decision made to uphold the primary decision (refer to entry 40).45 26 November 2015 Request for access Seeking access to her Jobseeker records, details and any other entries on ESS Web since her records began. 24 December 2015:
Primary Decision made to release nine pages in full to Ms Morris.Approximately 90% of the documents requested were released to Ms Morris on 25 November 2015 (see entry 40), accordingly documents already released to her were not considered or provided again.
Ms Morris sought annotation of records (see entry 46).
46 5 December 2015 Request for annotation/amendment Seeking annotation or amendment to documents received in response to FOI Request dated 24 October 2015 (see entry 40). 15 December 2015:
Response sent to Ms Morris advising that the request is invalid as it does not meet the requirements for access, amendment or annotation under the FOI Act.47 6 December 2015 Request for annotation/amendment Seeking annotation or amendment to documents received in response to Privacy Request dated 24 October 2015 (see entry 39). 15 December 2015:
Response sent to Ms Morris advising that the request is invalid as it does not meet the requirements for access, amendment or annotation under the FOI Act.48 6 December 2015 Request for annotation/amendment Seeking annotation or amendment to documents received in response to Privacy Request dated 24 October 2015 (see entry 39). 15 December 2015:
Response sent to Ms Morris advising that the request is invalid as it does not meet the requirements for access, amendment or annotation under the FOI Act.49 6 December 2015 Request for annotation/amendment Seeking annotation or amendment to documents received in response to Privacy Request dated 24 October 2015 (see entry 39). 15 December 2015:
Response sent to Ms Morris advising that the request is invalid as it does not meet the requirements for access, amendment or annotation under the FOI Act.50 7 December 2015 Request for annotation Seeking annotation of detailed comments and two documents to her records. 15 December 2015:
Response sent to Ms Morris advising that the request is invalid as it does not meet the requirements for access, amendment or annotation under the FOI Act.51 26 December 2015 Request for external review Seeking external review of the Department’s internal review decision of 24 December 2015 (see entry 45). 4 January 2016:
Response sent to Ms Morris providing details of how to apply for external review of the Department’s decision.52 7 January 2016 Request for annotation Seeking annotation of ‘Bogus Psychologist Report’ to her records. 13 January 2016:
Response sent to Ms Morris advising that the request is invalid as it does not meet the requirements annotation under the FOI Act. Requirements for annotation provided.53 8 January 2016 Request for access Seeking access to “a copy of the computer screen client details as entered by Thomas Smith of Employment Services Armadale on 13 November 2015 at approximately 11:00am”. 28 January 2016:
Primary decision made to release seven pages in full. Irrelevant material removed under section 22 of the FOI Act.Ms Morris sought annotation of these records on 28 January 2016 (see entry 58). 54 13 January 2016 Request for annotation Seeking annotation of “pages marked ‘Appointments History’, ‘Registration History’, ‘Comment List’, and ‘Referral and Placement History’, released to me [Ann Morris] in response to my FOI request of 26 November 2015”. 3 February 2016:
Primary decision made to process two annotations, that six requests for annotation were irrelevant and that five requests did not meet the requirements for access, amendment or annotation under the FOI Act.55 15 January 2016 Request for annotation Seeking annotation of Employment Services Assessment Report, dated 30 March 2015 (ESA Report) as currently held by the Department with hand written information contained in copy of ESA Report provided by Ms Morris, along with email provided by the National Health Practitioner Ombudsman and Privacy Commissioner and the following statement:
“Liz Vih…never contacted me and is completely unknown to me and now stated by AHPRA unknown to them (see attached letter)”
28 January 2016:
Response sent to Ms Morris advising that the request is invalid as it does not meet the requirements for access, amendment or annotation under the FOI Act. Response included a table setting out the 24 comments and missing information for Ms Morris’ consideration/completion. Information also provided regarding the psychologist’s name.Ms Morris sought annotation to this document on 5 September 2015 (see entry 37), 24 October 2015 (see entry 41), 27 October 2015 (see entry 42), 15 January 2016 (see entry 56) and 28 January 2016 (see entry 57). 56 28 January 2016 Request for annotation Seeking annotation of Employment Services Report, dated 30 March 2015. 26 February 2016:
Primary decision made to annotate the Employment Services Assessment Report by uploading a copy of Ms Morris’ email, dated 28 January 2016, and placing a comment on her file referring the reader to the email.
57 28 January 2016 Request for annotation Seeking annotation of records updated by Mr Thomas Smith. 26 February 2016:
Response sent to Ms Morris advising that the request is invalid as it does not meet the requirements for access, amendment or annotation under the FOI Act, and directing Ms Morris to the National Customer Service Line in relation to complaints made about the provider. Advice provided as to how to make a valid request.Ms Morris sought access to these records on 8 January 2016 (see entry 54). 58 27 February 2016 Request for annotation Seeking annotation of listed appointments, Job Plan and Comprehensive Assessment Tool. 4 March 2016:
Response sent to Ms Morris advising that the request is invalid as it does not meet the requirements for annotation under the FOI Act. Response included a table setting out the 11 comments and missing information for Ms Morris’ consideration/completion. Advice provided as to how to make a valid request.59 1 March 2016 Request for annotation Seeking annotation of provided statement to a prominent place on her file/records. 4 March 2016:
Response sent to Ms Morris advising that the request is invalid as it does not meet the requirements for annotation under the FOI Act. Advice provided as to how to make a valid request.60 13 March 2016 Request for annotation Seeking to have records corrected. 24 March 2016:
Response sent to Ms Morris advising that the request is invalid as it does not meet the requirements for access, amendment or annotation under the FOI Act. Information provided as to how to make such requests.61 24 March 2016 Request for annotation Seeking annotation of records within ESS Web. 7 April 2016:
Response sent to Ms Morris advising this is not a valid request as she is requesting annotation to records in general, not a specific document. Advice given on how to make a valid request.62 7 April 2016 Request for annotation Seeking annotation of documents constructed by Employment Services Armadale. 27 April 2016:
Response sent in relation to request for annotation of records on 7 April 2016 and 23 April 2016 (see entries 63 and 64 of Attachment A), advising that the requests are invalid and providing advice as to how to make a valid request.63 23 April 2016 Request for annotation Seeking annotation of documents that allege a mental health diagnosis and documents around her qualifications. 27 April 2016:
Response sent in relation to request for annotation of records on 7 April 2016 and 23 April 2016 (see entries 63 and 64 of Attachment A), advising that the requests are invalid and providing advice as to how to make a valid request.64 13 May 2016 Request for annotation Seeking annotation of records by adding to records that psychologists reports Ms Morris are before the Psychologist Board and AHPRA. 23 May 2016:
Response sent to Ms Morris advising correspondence may have been misdirected in error to the Department and that no further action will be undertaken (noting she referred to the WA FOI Act).65 24 May 2016 Request for annotation Seeking annotations of records within ESS Web. 2 June 2016:
Response sent to Ms Morris advising this is not a valid request as she is requesting annotation to records in general, not a specific document. Advice given on how to make a valid request.66 3 August 2016 Request for annotation Seeking annotation of Comprehensive Assessment Tool (manual version). 10 August 2016:
Response sent to Ms Morris advising this is not a valid request. Advice given on how to make a valid request.67 10 August 2016 Request for annotation Seeking annotation of Comprehensive Assessment Tool (manual version). On-going Ms Morris sought annotation to this document on 3 August 2016 (see entry 67).
She responded to the Department’s email of 10 August 2016 with additional information (including a further 4 emails and additional text to be included in the annotation request).
“Annexure B”
# Date Type Request Outcome 1 19 December 2014 Follow up of current request Follow up of request for access to/annotation of Forrest Personnel documents 24 December 2014:
Response sent advising of process for seeking access/annotation.2 6 January 2015 Follow up of current request Follow up of annotation request relating to Workrite documents. 7 January 2015: Response sent to Ms Morris advising of matters currently being processed by the department, including her request for documents from Workrite. 3 26 March 2015 Follow up of current request Follow up of request for amendment of Jobfind Maddington online computer records. 02 April 2015: Ms Morris advised that although not a valid request for annotation, the department has placed documents (provided in requests dated 16 February 2015, 2 March 2015 and 8 March 2015) on files with the Department, JobFind Centres Australia and Communicare Ltd. 4 26 March 2015 Follow up of current request Follow up of request for annotation of statutory declarations to records of the Department and of Communicare. 02 April 2015: Ms Morris advised that although not a valid request for annotation, the department has placed documents (provided in requests dated 16 February 2015, 2 March 2015 and 8 March 2015) on files with the Department, JobFind Centres Australia and Communicare Ltd. 5 30 March 2015 Follow up of current request Follow up of request for amendment of Jobfind Maddington online computer records. 02 April 2015: Ms Morris advised that although not a valid request for annotation, the department has placed documents (provided in requests dated 16 February 2015, 2 March 2015 and 8 March 2015) on files with the Department, JobFind Centres Australia and Communicare Ltd. 6 30 March 2015 Follow up of current request Follow up of request for access to records of ORS Armadale. 02 April 2015: Ms Morris advised that for records relating to Disability Employment Services, such as ORS Armadale, she needs to contact DSS. 7 2 April 2015 Follow up of current request Follow up of current request for amendment of Jobfind Maddington online computer records. 02 April 2015: Ms Morris advised that although not a valid request for annotation, the department has placed documents (provided in requests dated 16 February 2015, 2 March 2015 and 8 March 2015) on files with the Department, JobFind Centres Australia and Communicare Ltd. 8 3 April 2015 Follow up of current request Follow up of request for amendment of Jobfind Maddington online computer records. 02 April 2015: Ms Morris advised that although not a valid request for annotation, the department has placed documents (provided in requests dated 16 February 2015, 2 March 2015 and 8 March 2015) on files with the Department, JobFind Centres Australia and Communicare Ltd. 9 3 April 2015 Request for information Seeking confirmation of who holds documents of ORS. 7 April 2015: Response sent to Ms Morris advising of the process for seeking annotation and amendment and referring her to DSS in relation to ORS records. 10 3 April 2015 Request for information Seeking the name and qualification of the person making the diagnosis of schizophrenia in her records. 8 April 2015: Response sent to Ms Morris advising of the process used to create the relevant record and advising her that it is unclear who made the actual diagnosis. 11 19 April 2015 Request for information Requesting that the Department make enquiries into conduct of NEAMI National. 11 May 2015: Response sent to Ms Morris referring her to the relevant state mental health service provider for further information. 12 30 April 2015 Request for information Seeking update of “application for FOI” 6 May 2015: Response sent to Ms Morris advising that, given that the Department is processing seven requests at this point in time, the Department is unable to determine which request she is referring to. 13 11 May 2015 Request for information Seeking information about criminal activity relating to NEAMI. 11 May 2015: Response sent to Ms Morris referring her to the relevant state mental health service provider for further information. 14 14 May 2015 Provision of detailed information Providing detailed explanation of medical and employment history following a letter from the Department regarding the impact of her applications on the Department’s resources. No response provided. The Department considered the correspondence to be Ms Morris’ comments in relation to the Department’s letter of 14 May 2015, as there were no valid requests for access, amendment or annotation, or any other enquiry requiring a response. 15 21 July 2015 Request for information Seeking details of previous FOI applications to the Department. 23 July 2015: Response sent to Ms Morris providing details of previous applications to the Department. 16 9 November 2015 Request for information Request for confirmation of which Department has jurisdiction over ESS Web. 10 November 2015: Response sent to Ms Morris provding the number of the National Customer Service Line for general questions relating to the Department’s employment service programmes. 17 23 November 2015 Follow up of current request Follow up of current request and providing information to support her application for access (see entry 40 of Attachment A). 25 November 2015: The Department made its primary decision to release 70 pages in full to Ms Morris, but to withhold 14 pages to be released in full to a psychologist of Ms Morris’ choice. 18 25 November 2015 Request for information Seeking file/applicant numbers for FOI applications. 26 November 2015: Response sent to Ms Morris advising that the Department does not generally use file numbers to identify a particular FOI request and therefore no file numbers can be provided. 19 25 November 2015 Request for reissue of documents Ms Morris claimed not to have received documents released under the Privacy Act on 19 November 2015. Documents resent on 25 November 2015 and by post on 26 November 2015, despite delivery receipts confirmation delivery of the Department’s email dated 19 November 2015. 20 18 December 2015 Follow up of current requests Ms Morris sent an email insisting that the annotation/amendment requests to be completed (see entries 47 to 51 of Attachment A). 24 December 2015: Response sent to Ms Morris restating that her applications, at entries 47 to 51 of Attachment A, were invalid and inviting her to contact the Information Law Team to discuss how to make a valid request. 21 26 December 2015 Complaints and follow up requests Complain about certain aspects of employment services and insisting that the annotation/amendment requests be completed (see entries 47 to 51 of Attachment A). 7 January 2016: Response sent to Ms Morris providing her with contact details for the National Customer Service Line to raise her complaints and providing details for submitting a valid request for annotation/amendment under the FOI Act. 22 26 December 2015 Seeking reissue of documents Ms Morris requested a re-issue of documents released to her on 24 December 2015 (see entry 46 of Attachment A) on the basis that the text is too small. 5 January 2016: Response sent to Ms Morris advising her that A3versions of the documents were the only options for increasing the size of the text and that A3 copies of the document had been posted to her. 23 11 February 2016 Request for information Ms Morris sought information regarding her status as a Medicare client 11 February 2016: Response sent to Ms Morris advising her to contact the Department of Human Services, given that Medicare is with that department. 24 26 February 2016 Additional document provided in relation to annotation request (entry 57 of Attachment A) Additional information provided to assist with annotation request (entry 57 of Attachment A) – referring to person not registered with AHPRA. 1 March 2016: Response sent to Ms Morris confirming that the email had been considered, and the decision had been sent, as well as reminding her of comments relating to the psychologist’s name sent to her in previous correspondence, dated 28 January 2016 (see entry 56 of Attachment A). 25 26 February 2016 Additional document provided in relation to “lost” Department of Human Services Application Document provided in relation to request Ms Morris says the Department of Human Services has lost. 1 March 2016: Response sent to Ms Morris advising her to direct correspondence to the Department of Human Services and providing her with contact details. 26 19 March 2016 Follow up of current request Follow up of request for correction of records of the Department and Employment Services Group Armadale. . 24 March 2016: Response sent addressing enquiries of 19 and 24 March (see entry 26 and 27 of Attachment B) as well as request of 13 March 2016 (see entry 61 of Attachment A), explaining her application was invalid and how to make a valid request. 27 24 March 2016 Additional document provided in relation to application (see entry 61 of Attachment A). Additional information provided as “proof” in relation to an annotation request (see entry 61 of Attachment A). 24 March 2016: Response sent addressing enquiries of 19 and 24 March (see entry 26 and 27 of Attachment B) as well as request of 13 March 2016 (see entry 61 of Attachment A), explaining her application was invalid and how to make a valid request. 28 14 April 2016 Request for information Seeking to clarify if it is correct that her Jobseeker ID and email is no longer recognised by the Department’s systems. 27 April 2016: Response sent addressing enquiries of 14, 18 and 27 April (see entry 28, 29 and 30 of Attachment B) explaining these emails were not valid FOI requests and as such the Information Law Team would not respond. Information provided regarding how to contact the Department generally. 29 18 April 2016 Follow up of current request Follow up of request for information regarding her jobseeker ID. 27 April 2016: Response sent addressing enquiries of 14, 18 and 27 April (see entry 28, 29 and 30 of Attachment B) explaining these emails were not valid FOI requests and as such the Information Law Team would not respond. Information provided regarding how to contact the Department generally. 30 18 April 2016 Follow up of current request Follow up of request for information regarding her jobseeker ID. 27 April 2016: Response sent addressing enquiries of 14, 18 and 27 April (see entry 28, 29 and 30 of Attachment B) explaining these emails were not valid FOI requests and as such the Information Law Team would not respond. Information provided regarding how to contact the Department generally. 31 22 April 2016 Follow up of request Follow up of requests for annotation of records (entries 63 and 64 of Attachment A). 27 April 2016: Response sent addressing enquiries of 22 April and 27 April 2017 (see entry 31 and 32 of Attachment B) as well as applications 7 and 23 April 2016 (see entries 63 and 64 of Attachment A) explaining her application is invalid and what is required for an annotation request to be valid. 32 27 April 2016 Follow up of requests Seeking an update in regards to all current requests. 27 April 2016: Response sent addressing enquiries of 22 April and 27 April 2017 (see entry 31 and 32 of Attachment B) as well as applications 7 and 23 April 2016 (see entries 63 and 64 of Attachment A) explaining her application is invalid and what is required for an annotation request to be valid. 33 9 May 2016 Request for information regarding an annotation request with another organisation. Request misdirected and not intended for the Department of Employment. 13 May 2016: Response sent confirming this email was misdirected and no action will be taken by the Department of Employment. 34 9 May 2016 Follow up of request with another organisation. Request misdirected and not intended for the Department of Employment. 13 May 2016: Response sent confirming this email was misdirected and no action will be taken by the Department of Employment. 35 13 May 2016 Follow up requests Seeking an update of various requests. 24 May 2016: Response sent explaining that no valid requests had been received by the Department, therefore there are no outstanding FOI matters. Advised Ms Morris to contact Information Law Team if she would like information on how to provide a valid FOI request (noting this information has been provided on many occasions previously). 36 20 June 2016 Requesting an extension of time. Requesting an extension of time to respond to Department response of 2 June 2016 due to limited access to email system and personal records. 23 June 2016: Response sent referring to Department response of 2 June 2016 (see entry 66 of Attachment A), in which Ms Morris was advised that her emails do not constitute a valid annotation request, therefore there are no timeframes to comply with. Advice given on how to made a valid 37 19 July 2016 Follow up on documents. Requesting information as to whether documents previously provided to the Department and National Customer Service Line (NCSL) have been kept. 27 July 2016: Response sent advising that documents previously provided to the Department have been kept and as a valid request has not been made, no further action will be taken. Also directed Ms Morris to NCSL regarding documents that she has provided to NCSL.
0
2
0