Dear Administrative Appeals Tribunal,

I request the following documents:

1. A copy of all contracts between the labour hire provider 'Launch Recruitment' and the AAT, in the possession of either the AAT or 'Launch Recruitment'.

2. A copy of any of the AAT's policies & procedures, with regard to the use of labour hire firms, and labour hire arrangements.

Yours faithfully,
John Smith

Dear Skye M

Thank you for your reply

[[Section 24 of the FOI Act – Multiple requests]]

I request that you do not treat these requests as a single request, as the requests relate to documents with substantially different subject matter.
A contract, by its very nature; has a substantially different subject matter to a financial record. A financial record has a substantially different subject matter to labour hire engagement guidelines. (and so on)

I put to you, that you do not have the requisite grounds to be satisfied that the requests should be consolidated. Please treat them separately.

[[Your intention to refuse my request]]

I propose that my requests be narrowed as follows:

1. A copy of all contracts between the labour hire providers 'Launch Recruitment' and the
AAT, in the possession of either the AAT or 'Launch Recruitment'
Please narrow the request to a copy of all documents that meet this description, for the months of September and October 2019

2. A copy of any of the AAT's policies & procedures, regarding the use of labour hire firms,
and labour hire arrangements.
Please narrow the request to only include documents that meet this description, that are available on the AAT’s intranet.

3. Any documents in possession of the AAT that detail the amount being spent by the AAT
on the procurement of labour hire staff.
Please narrow this request to only include documents that are monthly & quarterly reports, spreadsheets, or on an AAT database

4. Any documents in possession of the AAT that detail the number of labour hire staff that
have worked at the AAT.
Please narrow this request to only include documents that detail the number of labour hire staff in aggregate working at the AAT. For example, the document the AAT’s procurement section provided to you to inform you that there are 551 individuals working at the AAT; would be sufficient.

5. Any email correspondence between the AAT and any of its labour hire agencies that
discuss the contracts of employees of labour hire agencies; who have/will, perform work
at/on behalf of, the AAT
Please narrow this request to only include email correspondence between a staff member of the AAT and a labour hire provider; in the month of October 2019

6. Copies of any staff emails in either the month of December 2019, or January 2020; that
mention section 6 of the Public Service Act.
Please narrow this request to only include emails in either the month of December 2019, or January 2020; that contain the exact term “public service act” (not case sensitive). Please also narrow the request to only include the emails of officers within the MRD division.

7. Copies of any staff emails in either the month of December 2019, or January 2020; that
mention the public service code of conduct.
I withdraw this request.

8. Copies of any emails between the AAT and any of its labour hire providers that mention
the APS code of conduct.
Please narrow this request to exclude deleted or archived emails.

9. A copy of all contracts between any labour hire provider and the AAT, in the possession
of either the AAT or the respective labour hire provider.
Please narrow this request to only include contracts entered into between the months of September 2019 and October 2019.

I await your response
Yours faithfully,
John Smith

Dear FOI,

Thank you for your correspondence and please narrow the request in the following ways:

3. Please restrict this to the 2019 calendar year as you suggest.

5. Please narrow this request to documents between the following specific senior AAT officers, and any labour hire agency, for the month of October 2019:
- Chris Sutton
- Sera Clemens

I note that inefficient record management is not a valid reason for an agency to claim that an FOI request is in and of itself, an unreasonable burden on an agency.(https://idm.net.au/article/0011435-bad-r...). I do not agree for this request to be refined to exclude deleted or archived emails.

6. Similar to part 5 of my request, please narrow this request to the following specific senior AAT officers:
- Chris Sutton
- Sera Clemens

8. Please narrow this request to only include the emails of the following AAT senior officers:
- Chris Sutton
- Sera Clemens

9. Please narrow this request to only include contracts between the AAT and Launch Recruitment Pty Ltd, Hays recruitment, Adecco Pty Ltd, Wilson security; and associated entities of those four companies.

As labour hire usage throughout the APS is a matter of significant public concern and debate, I ask that the processing charge in this instance be waived.

e.g. https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news...

I also note that inefficient record keeping practices are not a justification for exorbitant fees claimed in response to an FOI request: https://idm.net.au/article/0011435-bad-r...

Yours sincerely,

John Smith

Dear Tahnee De Souza,

The proposed charge exceeding $6,000 is manifestly ridiculous; given now narrow scope of documents sought.

If that is the charge the AAT proposes, I intend to appeal.

Yours sincerely,

John Smith

Dear Tahnee De Souza,

In an effort to be cooperative, I offer to further narrow the scope of my FOI request to exclude:'

1. Narrow the request to not include contracts where the AAT is merely a 3rd party to a contract between a labour hire firm, and a labour hire employee.

3. any document that is neither a monthly or quarterly final report.

5. further narrow the request to only include email correspondence between 21st October and 25th October (inclusive).

6. further narrow the request to only include email correspondence between 16th December 2019, and 20th December 2019 (inclusive).

8. further narrow the request to only include the emails of Chris Sutton and Sera Clemens between 16th December 2019 and 20th December 2019 (inclusive).

9. further narrow the request to only include contracts between the AAT and the following firms and their associates: Launch Recruitment Pty Ltd, Hays recruitment, Adecco Pty Ltd, Wilson security. Do not include contracts where the AAT is merely a 3rd party fo the contract between a labour hire firm, and a labour hire employee.

Given the public interest surrounding the use of labour hire firms throughout the public service, I again request that the FOI fee be waived in this instance. Please acknowledge this request for a fee waiver.

Yours sincerely,

John Smith

Dear FOI,

I am not sure why the OAIC has informed you that I have contacted them in relation to this FOI request. I assure you I have not. Perhaps there is confusion due to my name 'john smith' being quite common.

I contend that the charge has been incorrectly assessed. I further revised the request on the 26th of March, and this is not reflected in the charge quoted. Secondly, much of the patently absurd $6,000 charge is a result of inefficient record keeping practices at the AAT.

I note that poor record keeping are not a justification for exorbitant fees claimed in response to an FOI request. https://idm.net.au/article/0011435-bad-r...

Secondly, I contend that the fee ought to be waived in this instance. Labour hire usage throughout the APS is a matter of significant public concern and debate, I ask that the processing charge in this instance be waived. The attached links demonstrate that fact:

https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news...

https://www.michaelwest.com.au/boomers-v...

Yours sincerely,

John Smith

Dear FOI,

Has my contention been recieved by the department?

Yours sincerely,

John Smith

Dear FOI,

Please confirm whether my contention has been recieved by the department.

Yours sincerely,

John Smith

Dear FOI,

I seek internal review of this decision. The $6,000 charge does not reflect the request to further narrow the scope of the FOI request, made on the 26th of March.

In this decision the decision maker has written that they did not recieve an email on the 26th of March requesting that the scope of the FOI request be narrowed.

The email was recieved by the department. The delivery record for the relevant email can be found here: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/outgoing_...

If the 26th of March email cannot be found within the AAT's records; it (and the delivery record) are both viewable via this link.

https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/c...

Yours sincerely,

John Smith

Dear FOI,

It appears what has happened is the narrowing of my FOI request was sent through to the OAIC, instead of the AAT, due the way the righttoknow.com.au platform works.

This appears to be the reason why the department did not recieved the narrowed request. As this seems to be the case, I withdraw this FOI request and will make a separate narrowed request instead.

Thank you for your assistance thus far.

Yours sincerely,

John Smith