Mulder and Department of Family and Community Services

[2000] AATA 548

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2000] AATA 548

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)     No  N1999/251

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION         )         

Re      JACK  DENIS  MULDER

Applicant

And    SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICES        

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal       Senior Member M D Allen

Date27 June 2000

PlaceSydney

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL  )        No   N1999/251
  )  
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION     )

Re        jack denis mulder
  Applicant

AndSECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICES

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal          Senior Member M D Allen

Date                  27 June 2000

Place                Sydney

DecisionFOR the reasons given orally at the conclusion of the hearing in this matter, the decision under review is AFFIRMED.

(Sgd)                   M.D. ALLEN

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

Senior Member
CATCHWORDS

SOCIAL SECURITY  -  Application to inspect documents.  Satisfied no further documents existed and that to enquire further would substantially and unreasonably direct resources of agency from its other operations.

Freedom of Information Act 1982 - s24 and s24A

REASONS FOR DECISION

Senior Member M D Allen

1. At the conclusion of the hearing of the above matter the terms of the decision intended to be made and the reasons therefor were stated orally. After service upon the Applicant of a copy of the decision that was in fact made, the Applicant pursuant to Sub-section 43(2A) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 requested the Tribunal to furnish to the Applicant a statement in writing of the reasons of the Tribunal for its decision.

2. The oral reasons for decision have been transcribed by Auscript, the Commonwealth Reporting Service.  Whereas those oral reasons may reflect the inelegance of an extempore decision, they are in fact the reasons for the said decision.

3. The said transcript is annexed hereunto and furnished to the Applicant and to the Respondent as it is the reasons for the Tribunal's decision.

I certify that this and the preceding page are a true copy of the decision and reasons for decision herein of:

Senior Member M D Allen

Signed:         Ivanka Mamic
          ....................................................................................

Associate

Dates of Hearing  15 October 1999, 8 May 2000, 27 June 2000 
Date of Decision  27 June 2000

Solicitor for Applicant                   Applicant was self-represented
Advocate for Respondent           Mr J Kenny, Centrelink

DRAFT DECISION  

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Matter No N99/251
By MR M.D. ALLEN, Senior Member
MULDER and SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY & COMMUNITY SERVICES
SYDNEY, TUESDAY, 27 JUNE 2000

MR ALLEN: In this matter the applicant has pursuant to an application received by the Tribunal sought to obtain documents under the Freedom of Information Act. An original request was made to the respondent Secretary of the Department of Family and Community Services on 16 June 1997 in which he requested access to the whole of his social security file. It would appear pursuant to document T3 of the documents prepared for the Tribunal pursuant to section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 75, that a file was located and access was given to certain documents. The applicant has thereafter insisted that there are other documents available to which he has not been given access.

There are two sections of the Freedom of Information Act which apply to the proceedings which have taken place before this Tribunal. The first of those is sub-section 1 of section 23 where it is said:

The agency dealing with a request may refuse to grant access to documents in accordance with the request without having caused the processing of the request to have been undertaken if the agency is satisfied that the work involved in processing the request would substantially and unreasonably divert the resources of the agency from its other operations.

Section 24A states:

An agency may refuse a request for access to a document if all reasonable steps have been taken to find the document and the agency is satisfied that the document is in the agency's possession but cannot be found or does not exist.

Now in this matter which has proceeded over three days of the Tribunal there has been reference to vague and uncertain documents.  The applicant has been informed and I have no reason to reject what was told to me has been given full access to what documents exist by a Mr Pellizieri who is the FOI co-ordinator at Centrelink at Liverpool and has inspected various documents.

mulfamJ 27.6.00 P-1
©Auscript Pty Ltd 2000

The applicant has also had extensive proceedings before Deputy President Blow in this Tribunal in which a large number of documents again were made available to him.  In the proceedings this morning there is an affidavit by Mr Neville Hill as to due inquiry and search and it would appear from that no further documents can be located in the applicant's case.  Any other documents which may exist there is a standing invitation to the applicant to contact Mr Pellizieri a Liverpool Centrelink officer and he will make those documents and himself available as he has already done so.

I am informed that documents which have been obtained back from the Australian Federal Police following the prosecution of the applicant for Social Security fraud are available for his perusal at the Liverpool office.  It seems to me that in all the circumstances of this case (a) such documents as do exist have been made available and no others exist but more importantly pursuant to section 24 it would unreasonably divert the resources of the respondent to deal further with this matter.  The decision under review is therefore affirmed.

mulfamJ 27.6.00 P-2
©Auscript Pty Ltd 2000