Dear Sydney Trains,

How many defects does Sydney Trains have on the T2 line to Macarthur?

How many are safety related? When were these first known about?

The NSW people have a right to know if the railways aren't safe to use so this information should be free of cost.

Yours faithfully,

N Aziz

Dear Grace Fong,

In their comments on the GIPA Act, the Information and Privacy Commission (IPC) NSW states:

"The GIPA Act authorises and encourages the proactive release of information by NSW public sector agencies. It ensures that access to government information is restricted only when there is an overriding public interest against releasing that information. ... The guiding principle of the GIPA Act is public interest."

"An access application should only need to be lodged as a last resort."

"It is generally presumed that all government agencies will disclose or release information, unless there is an overriding public interest against doing so."

Please can you set out the reasons for assessing a full Access Application is required in this case to access public safety critical information?

Alternatively, please advise how this assessment can be appealed to Sydney Trains / TFNSW.

Yours faithfully,

N Aziz

Dear Enza Kursun,

The request yesterday was made for access to existing, written government records or information in accordance with the GIPA act. (It is not as a 'q and a' discussion.) The GIPA NSW legislation does not advise a citizen should already know the name of an internal document containing the information requested before the GIPA request can be processed. This requirement does not seem in accordance with the intent of the legislation or IPC NSW policy.

Kindly refer to these statements in the legilsation please:

NSW legislation: Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 No 52
from https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/view/...

In Act Part 4 - Interpretation
- "government information" means information contained in a record held by an agency.

In Schedule 4
- In this Act, "record" means any document or *other source of information compiled, recorded or stored in written form or by electronic process, or in any other manner or by any other means*.

Please could you confirm if sydney trains has no record or information (written or electronic database) of its defects and maintenance problems on the trains and buildings?

Referring to your enquiry about location/date/report name, please find more information to clarify below:

Location - T2 line - Macarthur station to Sydney Central station.

Date - "latest available"

Report names -
1. Management report for defect list (written or electronic copy) to show:
- total number of defects on this railway?
- how many of the defects are related to safety issues for passengers or staff?

2. Defect log - showing full description of the oldest defect in sydney trains list of defects. (Date first known about / where it is / what it involves (e.g. fault passenger alarm).

Thank you.

Yours sincerely,

N Aziz

Dear Jenie Kocanovski,

Thank you for your message.

Sydney Trains’ unexplained decision not to release public safety-related information to an informal request made under the GIPA NSW Act, and instead to require the same questions to be made through a formal application seems inconsistent with the GIPA NSW Act's stated objectives (Part 1, Section 3) – namely for government agencies to be “pro-active, open, fair and effective”. Without being aware of their reasoning, the decision appears to unnecessary.

Their decision seems not to be aligned to the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC)’s policies. The IPC website (link below) states:

"The guiding principle of the GIPA Act is public interest. It is generally presumed that all government agencies will disclose or release information, unless there is an overriding public interest against doing so.”

“Under the GIPA Act agencies are encouraged to *proactively and informally release* as much other information as possible. An access application (also known as a formal application) should only need to be lodged *as a last resort*."

"The GIPA Act authorises and encourages the proactive release of information by NSW public sector agencies (and) ensures that access to government information is restricted only when there is an overriding public interest against releasing that information."

Link: https://www.ipc.nsw.gov.au/fact-sheet-in...

The information sought is in the NSW wider public's interest, is simple and short, and does not refer to any private or personal records.

1. As the manager of Sydney Trains GIPA process, can the Managing Director of TFNSW Corporate Services confirm whether they fully support Sydney Trains' decision not to fulfill the informal request for safety information and to require a formal access application with unquantifiable costs to the NSW citizen?

2. Please can you ask Sydney Trains what reasons it has - by reference to the GIPA NSW Act and IPC policies - to withhold simple, public safety related documents requested informally? Please can they also confirm they will release all the requested information if a formal application is made?

Yours sincerely,

N Aziz

Dear Jarrod Whitbourn,

Thank you for your message. I do not wish to discuss any matters in a manner that is 'off the record', nor to give TFNSW additional personal information that is irrelevant and not required by law. I request that TFNSW continue to correspond on this GIPA request in writing.

To date, the messages from TFNSW have not addressed the valid informal access request made under the GIPA (NSW) Act on 13 Oct 2020, two weeks ago.

To summarise matters to date:

1. TFNSW's message on 14 Oct 2020 from Grace Fong stated that the TFNSW "Information Access Unit" office "cannot answer questions" and that a "formal access application" was necessary.

2. In response, statements from the GIPA (NSW) Act were provided and extracts from the Information and Privacy Commission (IPC) NSW policies to demonstrate to TFNSW that neither of Ms Fong's statement was correct.

3. On 14 Oct 2020 a message from TFNSW's Enza Kursun was sent stating (again) the TFNSW "Information Access Unit" office "cannot answer questions" and that it was necessary for GIPA applicants to know "specific details e.g. dates" and the "name of a report". Once again, this advise is not consistent with the GIPA Act or IPC policies, either in fact, nor in the spirit intended by the law.

4. In response to that, more advice was provided on 14 Oct 2020 to the TFNSW Information Access Unit, to describe the legal background and to offer any more details that might help TFNSW to locate the simple and unambiguous information.

5. One week later, on 21 Oct 2020, a one-line response was forwarded from TFNSW's Information Access Unit on behalf of Sydney Trains stating the "information was unavailable informally".

6. Despite further detailed statements given to a third Information Access Unit employee, Jenie Kocanovski, on 23 Oct 2020, the original informal request under GIPA on 13 Oct 2020 remains unresolved as do the two questions addressing TFNSW and Sydney Trains' responses to the enquiry. For reference, these are:

Q1. As the manager of Sydney Trains GIPA process, can the Managing Director of TFNSW Corporate Services confirm whether they fully support Sydney Trains' decision not to fulfil the informal request for public safety information, and to require a formal access application with unquantifiable costs to the NSW citizen?

Q2. Please can TFNSW ask Sydney Trains what reasons it has - by reference to the GIPA NSW Act and IPC policies - to withhold simple, public safety related documents requested informally? Please can Sydney Trains confirm they will release all the requested information if a formal application is made?"

Please could you set out TFNSW's timeline for responding to all matters raised (under and outside of the GIPA Act) - in accordance with the GIPA Act's prescribed schedule?

If the original informal request remains unresolved by 3 Nov. I will look to raise the lack of progress and apparent withholding of information related to rail transport public safety with our local MP, the Minister and/or the media.

Yours sincerely,

N Aziz

Dear Jarrod Whitbourn,

Thank you for your email.

1. If the only issue preventing Sydney Trains from responding to the original informal request under GIPA (NSW) Act was that TFNSW required the applicant's preferred definition of "defect", and the timeframe for which the information is sought, it is unfortunate that TFNSW and Sydney Trains have so far declined three times in writing to respond to the request. Additionally, it is very regrettable the simple enquiry has involved, so far, 4 government staff members from TFNSW alone, required 5 prior emails from TFNSW prior to seeking clarification, and taken 2 weeks before the clarification was sought. However I will address the points you raise:

2. The definition of 'defect' is per Sydney Trains' definition of the term and if this doesn't exist, the common meaning of the word. It would be highly concerning if a multi-million dollar public rail transport operator has no method to log any 'maintenance, technical, functional, safety issues' associated with its buildings and equipment' when public safety is of prime concern. Please can you confirm if any list of equipment with defects is held by TFNSW or its agencies and if this information is registered electronically?

The 13 Oct application sought the number of existing defects that are safety-related. If a computer database is used, a search of this should be quick and simple to determine how many records exist, and how many of these are flagged as a risk to public or staff safety. Is there no priority setting done on fixing defects? (To address your specific point, if a train has a defect that does not affect public safety, it is still a defect.).

3. Regarding the timeframe, it is unnecessary to narrow the enquiry by this irrelevant criteria. If a record of the backlog of defects on the railways exists electronically (or on paper), it should be a trivial search the database to locate the oldest unresolved defect. (For example, if a passenger safety alarm has been logged at any time as defective and has still not been fixed, it remains a "public safety defect" requiring attention.) Thus a time range is irrelevant and does not impede the request.

4. I have to decline your suggestion to have discussion with you by telephone, as this GIPA-related communication is not open to scrutiny, not available to the public on the record, and is unnecessary.

Based on the GIPA NSW Act and Information and Privacy Commissioner policies I can see no reason why the government will not make available public safety-related information, without payment of fees by the NSW citizen. If Sydney Trains still refuses to release the information informally, can you cite the provisions of the GIPA Act that this is decided under?

5. Your email comments "about 2000" access applications are received each year - and that these are "similar" to the information sought in the 13 Oct 2020 application. However,
a) The mandatory TFNSW Public Disclosure Log shows in the period 1 Oct 2019 to 1 Oct 2020 only 55 disclosures were completed, of which 1 in every 4 was released only "partially". These figures equate to less than 3% of the "2000 application" receiving any form of response, and 2% of the total requests being fulfilled in full. Please can you confirm if this interpretation is correct?
b). From a review of the titles of previously (full or partially) responded to requests, only one out of the 55 requests related to defects across any mode of transport, and that one enquiry asked how many speed cameras were not functioning. Can you refer to any other "similar" enquiries that addressed public safety defects please?

Please can you raise with Sydney Trains the informal access application made under the GIPA NSW Act on 13 Oct 2020, as clarified above and provide the completed responses, ASAP?

Yours sincerely,

N Aziz