Adam, In case you aren't aware, the FOI act gives an Agency a right to refuse access if the request will "would substantially and unreasonably divert the resources of the agency from its other operations".

If you want at least some of the information you are seeking, perhaps you could refine your request? What information are you looking for specifically? Does it need to be anything within the last 4 years?

If they need to comb through 4 years of documents, and consult with a huge number of both active and defunct agencies, then I can understand why they would refuse the request.

Well thanks for the advice, but because GLORICIDE does not actually exist and is just a "Hypothetical", there is probably not much information then.

Extracting any information requires a diversion of resources, so i guess if the government deems the information to liable, that's the first cab of the rank isn't it?

If the governments got nothing to hide, then i am sure the documents would be fit for release.

HI Adam,

The key words are "substantially and unreasonably" when it comes to diversion of resources. As you can see on here, many requests are fulfiled (at least in part).

I think I read somewhere that the "guideline" is a 40 hour limit (that includes retreiving the documents, inspecting each page of each document, consultation with 3rd parties, and decision making time).

It's not a case of if the Government "has anything to hide" it's the case that someone needs to read through each and every page of every document referencing Gloricide in the last 4 years, consult with any 3rd parties mentioned, and then decide, in accordance with the Act, if the information is exempt or can be released.

Primary: I think that you have not sufficiently limited your request. You must keep to mind that the Department is only required to give you five hours of time free. If they use five hours to search and try to work out exactly what you mean, then you will pay for everything else. And if everything else exceeds 35 hours (5 free hours + 35 paid hours) then it will be reasonable for the officer to refuse, in the way it has, to process your request.

Secondary, I think that you will make more progress if you do not rail against the department. It is better to work on the assumption that the officer is doing her very best to give you want you want. I understand that often it does not appear that way and that it might, in truth, not be that way. But the Act works on the assumption that officers will fulfill their duty; if you make a different assumption, the Act will simply not work for you. Also, in this case, the officer has said "I invite you to ...", which is a very reasonable and correct approach.

May I suggest that you give the officer a way to search for a limited number of documents. For example, if you did not hear of Gloricide until the year 2005, then you do not want the officer to search archives from 1901 in case Gloricide was mentioned in that time! Also, maybe Gloricide is no longer a subject for very much discussion, so maybe you can say "Please search only documents between January 2005 and February 2010. Another suggestion is to expand (!) your search by describing Gloricide in a manner that does not use a trade-name or invented name. Last, it has little disadvantage to limit the search to electronic records only. So, perhaps you could say:

"Thank you for your invitation to me to limit scope of my request. I request
(1) only electronic documents (e.g., emails or documents stored in the Department's document management system);
(2) only documents that include words 'gloricide', 'metsulfuron methyl', '2,4-D', '2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid', or the combination of words 'herbicide' and 'hormone'
(3) only documents created after January 1, 2010 and before January 1, 2013"

You must need to make changes to my example to have it correct (I did not know of Gloricide before I read your request!).

This is not a good use of Right to Know. To be foreceful in my saying, it is disgraceful. It can give the Right to Know website a poor reputation even if Right to Know is only the communication passage.

The purpose of Right to Know is to simplify how to make a Freedom of Information request. It is not to help a user to insult public servants and call people murderers. The reply from the applicant adds nothing to the FOI request and it does not do the one action that is available to the applicant, which is to ask for a review. Instead, there is only a tirade. Also, possibly of most importance to understanding the Australian FOI Act, the tirade is factually wrong.

I explain. The department did refuse the application; but it did not refuse to release any information in the way that the applicant has claimed. If the department was refusing to release information because of the information, they would identify relevant documents and then the department would claim that the documents were "exempt" or "conditionally exempt" (maybe for a correct reason, maybe for incorrect reasons). That did not happen.

The thing that happened is the department made some reasonable claims that the request was not sufficiently tightened. The FOI officer made a nice invitation to the applicant about how to proceed. I did of myself make suggestions about how to improve the application (http://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/gl...). But the applicant did not do any of this and remained the application too broad. So, the department has refused to consider the application further, and uses section 24(1)(b) to do this. Also, the applicant has been explained his rights for review and his right to make a formal complaint. Last, the applicant can at any time improve his original request, make it with sensible restrictions in the way that the department has invited (and I did already suggest) and resubmit it.

There are times when departments make a refusal of applications for the wrong reasons or when the reasons can be questioned. In that case, there are methods for seeking a review. This was not a time but even so, the applicant could have asked for a review. Also there are times when a department can behave badly. This was not a time, but even so the applicant could complain. He does not do either of these things.

Please Mr Presnell, respect the purpose of the Right to Know website. When you abuse the purpose of the site, you make a problem for people who want to use the site for the purpose that it is created.

All,

The last email sent by the requestor has been hidden as it does not comply with our Guidelines. I have put a block on any further comments at this time.

Please see https://www.righttoknow.org.au/help/requ... and https://www.righttoknow.org.au/help/requ... for details on what we moderate and why. In this case, the email contained material which could be defamatory.

Thanks to Locutus Sum for your contribution, it is a message that I personally agree with.

Regards,

Ben
Right to Know Administrator