Vranic and Centrelink

[2004] AATA 144

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2004] AATA 144

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No Q2003/718

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE  DIVISION		)
Re		LJUBICA VRANIC

Applicant

And CENTRELINK

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Senior Member B J McCabe

Date13 February 2004

PlaceBrisbane

Decision The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review. The Tribunal makes an order under s35(2)(c) Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 prohibiting the disclosure of the address and phone number of Julijane Vranic to the applicant.

..................Sgd.........................

Senior Member

CATCHWORDS

Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth)

REASONS FOR DECISION

13 February 2004 Senior Member B J McCabe        

Introduction

1. Ms Ljubica Vranic sought access to documents on her Centrelink file under the Freedom of Information Act 1982. Centrelink declined to release one document in its entirety and deleted portions of four other documents. Ms Vranic has appealed that decision to the Tribunal

The Material Before the Tribunal

2. The Tribunal was provided with the information required under s37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975. It also received into evidence a copy of a letter from the applicant’s daughter, a letter from a psychologist whom the applicant had seen and copies of some material tendered by Ms Vranic dealing with international law.

3.      Ms Vranic appeared on her own behalf. Ms Hamilton appeared on behalf of the respondent.

The Legislation

4. Section 11 of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 gives each individual a right of access to documents held by an agency like Centrelink. It is not an unlimited right: the agency is entitled or even required to refuse access to the documents, or parts of them, when an exemption is available.

5. Centrelink claimed one document was completely exempt from disclosure, and a further four documents could only be released after deleting material that was exempt. Centrelink relies on the exemption in s 41. Section 41 exempts from disclosure those documents (or parts of documents) containing personal information that cannot be reasonably disclosed. The respondent’s delegate pointed out in her review decision (at document T2) that s 202 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 prohibited the unauthorised disclosure of confidential information about one person to another person. Centrelink says the documents in this case contain confidential information about the applicant’s daughter, whose privacy must be protected.

The Third Party Consents to Disclosure

6.      The applicant’s daughter was contacted by Centrelink officers and asked whether she would consent to the release of the information about her affairs. On the Friday before the hearing, she gave her consent and a copy of her letter was shown to the Tribunal and to Ms Vranic. I was told the applicant’s daughter had requested that her address and contact details be withheld from the applicant. I made an order under s35 of the Act that Julijane Vranic’s contact details not be disclosed to the applicant or to any other person other than Tribunal and Centrelink staff acting in the course of their duties. A copy of the letter of consent was made available to Ms Vranic with the contact details deleted. Copies of the five documents were also made available to the applicant.

Ms Vranic’s wider claims

7.      I assumed it was therefore unnecessary for me to consider any of the arguments relating to s 41. Ms Vranic’s application was successful, after all. But she was not satisfied. It appears Ms Vranic is concerned that confidential information was routinely released from her file to persons outside Centrelink. She objects in particular to the possibility that her information might be provided to medical practitioners and others. She noted (and Ms Hamilton confirmed) that Centrelink had arranged for her to see one of its own psychologists. He was asked to consider whether Ms Vranic was an appropriate candidate for the disability support pension. (She currently receives Newstart allowance.) Ms Vranic was upset by the implication she was disabled.

8.      Ms Vranic demanded to know the identity of the person within Centrelink or the Department of Family and Community Services who was authorising the release of her personal information. She referred on several occasions to the wording of s 41. That section refers (at sub-section (3)) to confidential information being provided to a qualified person nominated by the applicant. That sub-section makes it possible for Centrelink (in this case) to provide access to sensitive information through a person who is able to explain and perhaps interpret the raw data in a way that will assist or protect the applicant. But that is irrelevant here. Ms Hamilton told the Tribunal Centrelink had not provided information to third parties from Ms Vranic’s file. She said the referral to the psychologist was standard practice: Centrelink routinely refers its customers to counsellors or social workers or psychologists in order to identify and address the customer’s needs. The psychologist in question was employed within Centrelink itself, so any information that might have been garnered from the file did not leave the agency.

9.      The short answer to Ms Vranic’s demand to know who was releasing her personal information is that I am satisfied no-one is releasing her personal information.

10.     Ms Vranic also expressed concern about documents from her file that had been shredded. The applicant produced a Centrelink document that referred to an audit that resulted in the destruction of files once they had been kept in storage for a period of time. She was suspicious of the concept of an audit. She thought important or embarrassing information might have been purged. However there is no evidence of that occurring. Ms Hamilton said files were stored and, after a period of time, they were marked for destruction to make room for other files. There is no reason to believe there was anything damaging or salacious or sensitive in those files.

Conclusion

11.     Ms Vranic became animated and angry at the hearing. She does not trust Centrelink and thinks she is being persecuted. I saw no evidence of it. She received the documents she asked for. Satisfactory explanations were offered in response to the other allegations she raised. She ought to be satisfied, although I note her advice that she intended to appeal my decision (and other decisions, presumably of other members of the Tribunal) to the Federal Court.

12.     As a formal matter, I set aside the decision to deny Ms Vranic access to the documents in question. She is to be provided with copies of the documents. I also order that Julijane Vranic’s address and phone number not be disclosed to the applicant or to any other person apart from employees of Centrelink and the Tribunal acting in the course of their duties.

I certify that the 12 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member B J McCabe

Signed:         .......................................................................................
  Associate: Thomas Ritchie

Date/s of Hearing: 9 February 2004
Date of Decision: 13 February 2004
The applicant represented herself.
The Respondent was represented by Ms Joy Hamilton, a Departmental advocate