Customers recording interactions 104-07020060
Ben Fairless made this Freedom of Information request to Services Australia
This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.
Dear Department of Human Services,
Can you supply a copy of the below document:
Customers recording interactions 104-07020060
Link is here: https://operational.humanservices.gov.au...
Please process this request under IPS or administratively if possible. If you can't do this, please process as a formal FOI request.
Yours faithfully,
Ben Fairless
Dear Mr Fairless
Please see attached correspondence related to your recent Freedom of
Information request.
FOI Officer
FOI and Litigation Branch
Legal Services Division
Department of Human Services
[1]cid:image001.png@01CF8C5E.459B3DD0
This email and any attachments may contain information subject to legal
professional privilege or information that is otherwise sensitive or
confidential. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you are
prohibited from using or disseminating this communication. If you have
received this communication in error please notify the sender immediately
and permanently delete this email.
References
Visible links
Dear FREEDOMOFINFORMATION,
Just to clarify, I'm looking for the internal document, not the document which is available online that contains no information.
You've implied in your letter that this request is on behalf of Right to Know. This request is made in a personal capacity and not on behalf of Right to Know or the charity that looks after it.
Yours sincerely,
Ben Fairless
Dear Mr Fairless
Please see attached correspondence relating to your recent request.
FOI Officer
FOI and Litigation Branch
Legal Services Division
Department of Human Services
[1]cid:image001.png@01CF8C5E.459B3DD0
This email and any attachments may contain information subject to legal
professional privilege or information that is otherwise sensitive or
confidential. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you are
prohibited from using or disseminating this communication. If you have
received this communication in error please notify the sender immediately
and permanently delete this email.
References
Visible links
Dear Charlie,
Thanks for your charges letter - I contend that the charges are excessive and should be reduced to nil.
The document in question is listed (but not provided) on the DHS Operational Documents portal. I provided the document ID and it should have been possible to search the relevant system using that ID and recover the document in a few seconds. If it took you time to review the document, that should be included in the review time.
In addition, as the document relates to decisions made by the department in relation to the public, I contend that the document should be released under the Information Publication Scheme.
I also note the public importance of this request. This document was singled out by the "#notmydebt" campaigners as a document they want to access. The request received many views and retweets online and would infom the public around the departments response to customers recording interactions.
Yours sincerely,
Ben Fairless
Dear Mr Fairless
Please see attached correspondence in relation to your recent Freedom of
Information request.
Charlie
FOI and Litigation Branch
Legal Services Division
Department of Human Services
[1]cid:image001.png@01CF8C5E.459B3DD0
This email and any attachments may contain information subject to legal
professional privilege or information that is otherwise sensitive or
confidential. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you are
prohibited from using or disseminating this communication. If you have
received this communication in error please notify the sender immediately
and permanently delete this email.
References
Visible links
Locutus Sum left an annotation ()
This comment is a repetition, in part, of a comment I made here: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/m... ...
[I am very surprised by] " the decision was the determination by the agency to charge $14.95 for search and retrieval time. I have never seen any other request on Right to Know where the retrieval time is so short and an agency has decided to charge for it. Also, because the $14.95 is not cost-recovery, the process that is required to make the charge will cost the agency much more than $14.95. [A person can see for example how much correspondence the agency has had to write to obtain $14!!] Yes, the agency is permitted to do this but that is not the real question. The question is "Why would they want to charge such a small amount?" In my opinion, the answer is probably (i) mostly to delay the request by the time it takes to issue the charge notice and confirm the payment, (ii) to discourage the applicant from prosecuting the request.
It would be interesting to discover whether this agency has an in-house policy about when to enforce charges.