Neeson and Centrelink

[2005] AATA 218

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2005] AATA 218

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL        Nº V2004/445

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION

Re:           CHRISTOPHER JAMES NEESON

Applicant

And:           CENTRELINK

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal:       G.D. Friedman, Member

Date:             15 March 2005

Place:            Melbourne

Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

(sgd) G.D. Friedman

Member

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION - request to amend records - archived on-line documents   

Freedom of Information Act 1982 ss 48, 56(1A)

REASONS FOR DECISION

15 March 2005  G.D. Friedman, Member

1.      This is an application by Christopher James Neeson (the applicant) for review of a decision of a review officer of Centrelink (the respondent) dated 13 May 2004 which affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Chief Executive Officer of the respondent dated 17 March 2004 in respect of a request by the applicant to amend and/or annotate computer (on-line) records held by the respondent.

2.      At the hearing on 1 March 2005 the applicant represented himself and Mr M. Todd, an advocate with Centrelink, represented the respondent.

3. The Tribunal received into evidence the documents lodged under s 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (T1-T68), together with one exhibit (Exhibit A1) lodged by the applicant and two exhibits (Exhibits R1 and R2) lodged by the respondent. 

BACKGROUND

4.      The applicant was receiving partner allowance when he was injured at work on 27 May 2001.  Centrelink reduced his payments in February 2002, and he received compensation from CGU Insurance (CGU) in April 2002.  On 18 September 2003 the applicant sought to annotate Centrelink records in relation to telephone calls dated 1 March 2002, 18 March 2002 and 19 March 2002.  On 22 September 2003 the applicant requested access to a facsimile sent to the respondent’s Compensation Recovery Team (CRT) dated 10 April 2003 and to a record of a telephone call dated 20 November 2002 from Mr D. McCartin of the CRT.

5.      The respondent deemed the requests to be applications under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the Act) for amendment or annotation of the applicant’s personal records. The requests were not dealt with by the respondent within the prescribed time limit, and under s 56(1A) of the Act the respondent considered that the request had been refused. On 17 March 2004 a delegate of the respondent replied to the applicant’s request and stated that the respondent’s computer system did not allow records more than 12 months old to be annotated. The delegate also stated that she had documented his version of events and concerns. Further, the delegate noted that the applicant had sought to revoke CGU’s access to the respondent’s information held about him, and for all his files to be removed from the CRT. The delegate decided that these were not privacy issues and referred the matters to the CRT.

6.      On 8 April 2004 the applicant lodged an application with the Tribunal for review of the decision.  When notified of the application, in a letter dated 20April 2004, the respondent pointed out that the applicant’s FOI request had not been subject to an internal review.  However, it would treat the applicant’s application to the Tribunal as a request for an internal review.  On 13 May 2004 a review officer affirmed the decision.

7.      The issues before the Tribunal are whether the respondent’s computer system would allow the annotation of a document more than 12 months old and whether other relevant documents should be annotated. 

EVIDENCE

8.      In oral evidence the applicant stated that he was unhappy with the decision by the respondent to reduce his partner allowance, and was critical of his treatment in general.  He stated that he was upset at the actions of CGU, and had requested that his records be annotated to reflect his concerns.  In relation to his request for annotations to computer documents more than 12 months old, the applicant said that he had had considerable experience in information technology mainframes some time ago, and disagreed that annotations could not be made to such records.

9.      In relation to the other matters, the applicant told the Tribunal that he objected to the delegate’s action in creating a document purporting to be his version of events, and said that his letter should have been read by the Privacy Officer.  He also said that the CRT had previously made false or misleading entries about him, and the delegate’s decision to send the letter to the CRT was highly inappropriate.

10.     Ms N. Battye, Privacy Officer of the Centrelink Sunshine Area Office, gave  oral evidence that she first saw a copy of the applicant's complaint dated 8 April 2003 in October 2003.

11.     In a letter dated 7 October 2004 (Exhibit R2) to the respondent’s Service Recovery Team, Mr A. James of the respondent’s Capability Systems Better Project Solutions Team, stated:

…

An on-line document is recorded on the customer file via the Centrelink mainframe.  Annotations may occur from creation of the on-line document until the document is archived.  Documents with a last updated date of 12 months or longer are set [sic] to be archived.  Once archived the documents go to the Archive and Culling Engine where further annotations cannot occur.  Previously on-line documents were archived to the Centrelink Archive and Retrieval System where further annotations also couldn’t occur.

The On-line Document Recording system has no business requirements/ specifications to allow for archived on-line documents to be annotated.  From a technical point of view, the reason staff cannot annotate an archived document is that there is no facility or option to do this. 

CONSIDERATION OF THE ISSUES

12. Section 48 of the Act provides:

48          Where a person claims that a document of an agency or an official document of a Minister to which access has been lawfully provided to the person, whether under this Act or otherwise, contains personal information about that person:

(a)that is incomplete, incorrect, out of date or misleading; and

(b)that has been used, is being used or is available for use by the agency or Minister for an administrative purpose;

the person may apply to the agency or Minister for:

(c)an amendment; or

(d)an annotation;

of the record of that information kept by the agency or Minister.

13.     Mr Todd acknowledged that the respondent had not complied with statutory time limits in replying to the applicant’s requests under the Act.  He referred to Exhibit R2 and submitted that the respondent’s technology prevented the annotation of on-line documents more than 12 months old, so that the delegate had acted appropriately in placing a document on the system recording her summary of the applicant’s version of events.

14.     Mr Todd stated that the delegate was correct in forwarding the applicant’s letter to the CRT, as there were no privacy issues involved.  He noted that the applicant had made a further request on 1 October 2004 for annotations to his file, and these have been provided to the applicant (Exhibit R1) and will be placed on the electronic document, noting their relevance to archived on-line documents.

15.     In reaching its decision the Tribunal takes into account the oral and written evidence and the submissions made at the hearing.

16.     The Tribunal accepts that the applicant is most unhappy with his overall treatment by the respondent in its handling of his files and its dealings with his various applications.  The Tribunal notes that the applicant has a background in information technology and is knowledgeable in certain areas that are relevant to the storage of documents and information on the respondent’s computer system.  However, he was unable to provide any evidence to support his claim that annotation of archived on-line documents is possible in the present circumstances.  In the absence of such evidence, the Tribunal accepts the respondent’s evidence, contained in the letter from Mr James, that on-line documents, sent to be archived after 12 months, once archived cannot be annotated under the respondent’s system.

17.     For this reason, the Tribunal finds that the respondent’s refusal to comply with the applicant’s request for annotations to archived on-line documents was reasonable.  In the circumstances, the Tribunal also finds that the action of the delegate in summarising the issues identified by the applicant was reasonable.  The Tribunal acknowledges that at the hearing Mr Todd indicated that detailed annotations dated 1 March 2005 (Exhibit R1), provided by the applicant, (which include many of the issues relevant to this application for review) have been placed on the respondent’s computer system.  The applicant’s complaints that the CRT had previously made false or misleading entries about him, and that the delegate’s decision to send the letter to the CRT was highly inappropriate are not within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

DECISION

18.     The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

I certify that the eighteen [18] preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision of:

G.D. Friedman, Member

(sgd)       Catherine Thomas

Clerk

Date of hearing:  1 March 2005

Date of decision:  15 March 2005
Advocate for applicant:                Self-represented
Advocate for respondent:            Mr M. Todd, Centrelink