I have followed several of the requests from Mr Presnell. It is not apparent why the requests so frequently contains threats and abuse.They are completely unnecessary, offensive, and unhelpful. It is not necessary to make sentences such "I suggest you provide this information requested without delay and without costs before it is summonsed." Under the law, the agency is entitled to charge fees. This is what they have done. Also, under the law, the applicant is entitled to ask for a reduction in the fees or a complete waiver of the fees, and the agency is required to consider the submission from the applicant. This also has been done. If the applicant believes that it would be easier to obtain the information that he wants by convincing a court to issue a writ, then the obvious thing to do is to obtain the writ and to stop using the RTI law.

It is useful to note that under s 63 of the Right to Information Act ("Waiver of charges"), the agency is permitted to waive charges ONLY if the requirements of Division 3 of the Act are satisfied. One possibility is for the applicant to provide the agency with a copy of a concession card. There are other possibilities but it is not an option to reduce charges because of the possibility that the information might otherwise be obtained under subpoena.

You left an annotation (June 15, 2017)

While obviously everyone may hold their own opinions, in communicating them, due regard must be given to whether the facts of any particular situation in question support them (if they don't, one can get into trouble).

I read through the communications of the Applicant here on this FOI application, and while it is not always concise, or directly relevant to the FOI, I didn't find any factual support for the opinions that it contained "threats and abuse" that would infringe civil/criminal law (which is where such classifications belong), nor offensive language. While I cannot comment on other applications, that seems an inappropriate characterisation here.

The applicant seems to be dealing with some significant personal issues, and clearly frustration is evident in his communications, but references to taking legal action etc, which are lawful in our society, seem poorly classified as threatening language (I doubt the agency is concerned by such references).

I think personal comments about applicants are not helpful, when advice should be on the technicalities of the FOI and how best to proceed. As per RtK's moderation policy:
Annotations on Right To Know are to help people get the information they want, or to give them pointers to places they can go to help them act on it.

Its very convenient to say lotus that the language is threatening, the bureaucrats should not feel threatened but they are no doubt aware of the consequences and ramifications of there actions.

They are more than aware that there actions are deliberately illegal and that their actions and in actions are causing mass death, mass disease and mass suffering. They know that the consequences of their actions will stay with them for life and they will ultimately have to take responsibility for the suffering that they are inflicting on others for the sake of getting rich. They know that they will go to jail and have their supers confiscated for there deliberate negligence.

However, lets look at the real issue. For the 30 years the APVMA has been doing an investigation into the use of chemical weapons used in the Vietnam war, applied to the food-chain.

The chemical weapons 2,4-D etc are a synthetic form of Estrogen and are now part of the diet of virtually all Australians. Since the beginning of the perpetual study of 2,4-D, the cancer rate has doubled every 10 years. Do you think it wise and prudent that the APVMA have stood back and allowed the product under investigation for 30 years to go and then be used in another chemical reaction to create a new product without any restrictions or regulation whatsoever? New products have to be registered, experimental products can only be used up to 10m2 nationally outside of a research station. GLORICIDE is unregisterable and used on mass without a valid permit.

There are laws to prohibit this recklessness and there are people paid by us to regulate and prosecute these murders, however the regulators are intentionally covering up this crime and so are the responsible politicians. The criminals in this case are the regulators and are refusing to investigate and thus protecting themselves and their fellow bureaucrats and politicians from jail time, meanwhile the people that pay their salaries die by the tens of thousand.

The APVMA and its Minister/s are receiving blood money off the manufactures of these products through product registrations and political donations (either directly or indirectly).

I asked the CEO for a legally required Statement of Reasons as to why she allowed the inventors of GLORICIDE (a government body) to use the product in and around waterways and without either a product registration or a valid permit. She refused and has refused to regulate the chemical cowboys that are actively out there risking other peoples lives.

I've been quoted $1000-2000 to access information relating to chemicals i have been exposed to. I have made numerous Adverse Incidents reports and yet they are not published or reported. I had to go to the PM to have the incident acknowledged and still it s not reported.

Lets get this straight, people have died and will continue to die due to a premeditated failure to act and actively covering up these crimes against humanity and the environment.

The production of Gloricide is a chemical reaction that produces banned substances, these substances are banned due to their innate dangers. They are not risks, they are a death sentence.

You can bang on about me as much as you like, i've heard it all before. If you are so concerned about law and order, why dont you go and find the real killers in Government threatening the lives of all Australians and the environmental terrorists using herbicides illegally in the environment. You wont have to look to far, however they are not going to stop poisoning people, they are receiving to much money off the manufacturers of chemical weapons and are a protected species. They would rather have me killed than risk prosecution.

7 highly paid bureaucrats have just been charged in the US for involuntary manslaughter in relation to a failure to act. There's hundreds of highly paid bureaucrats and politicians in Australia that should be charged with similar offenses for their coverup of GLORICIDE. Is it any wonder they are refusing to provide any information whatsoever to me and others for chemicals that we have been exposed to because of their deliberate negligence and coverup?

Hi Adam,

I read your annotation, and while it is true that some public servants view FOI as a pain in their backside, and don't administer FOI requests in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) and the s 93A Information Commissioner Guidelines, it is important to - when putting in your FOI applications - to focus any issues you raise in that application directly to what documents (or s 17 information) you want, and not to stray into making statements unrelated to the FOI process itself (that's not to say you shouldn't discuss such matters, but there are other forums designed for that - like Facebook, Twitter, etc, whereas this one is just about FOIs).

If an agency does something wrong in how they handle an FOI, but all means point that out (and if an error of law was committed, fair enough to say you may seek merits review at the OAIC/AAT or judicial review at the Federal Court), but it can be seen as soap boxing if you stray too often or too far into other areas either in the making of your FOI, or in your responses.

Keeping things succinct will also help others follow what's happening better, and provide more helpful information.

If you haven't already, do read the s 93A Information Commissioner Guidelines - they are reasonably well written, and can be a source of decent assistance. They can be found here https://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-infor...

The FOI process can be tough, and not everyone plays by the rules, and it can be very frustrating, but by keeping things on point and well targeted, which comes with experience, you will have some success.

Regards

Verity

You may find this useful - it outlines the process on Charges Decisions for agency staff. It can help you identify a ground of review https://www.oaic.gov.au/resources/freedo...

Forgot to mention earlier, if you think an agency has not handled your FOI request properly, and you have had no luck with the agency, there are two types of review you can seek from the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC):
* An Information Commissioner's Review - this reviews the merits of the FOI decision/refusal/charges decision; and/or
* s 70 FOI Act complaint - this is a complaint about the conduct of an agency in handling your FOI request, rather than the decision itself.

There is no charge or fees or costs for making these applications, and it can be as simply as just emailing enquiries@oaic.gov.au and telling them what you seek.

Do note however that these processes can be slow going, and tend to be "light touch" reviews, so it is important to make sure any commencement of these processes begins with a concise, well targeted submission on why the decision or conduct was wrong, as per the FOI Act and/or the s 93A Guidelines.

Can I suggest, if you seek review, that you may wish to focus on the time the APVMA have allocated for assessing any documents discovered.

The APVMA have estimated in their charges decision, that it would take them 11 hours to process your request - a little over two hours to search for documents within scope, which seems reasonable enough (a little padded, but not outrageous), but about 9 hours to assess any documents found (5 of those hours are free). That 9 hours looks excessive to me, and not consistent with the "lowest reasonable cost" object stated in s 3(4) FOI Act, which states "functions and powers given by this Act are to be performed and exercised, as far as possible, to facilitate and promote public access to information, promptly and at the lowest reasonable cost".

As per the s 93A Guidelines, Agencies and ministers should interpret the "lowest reasonable cost" objective broadly in imposing any charges under the FOI Act. That is, an agency or minister should have regard to the lowest reasonable cost to the applicant, to the agency or minister, and the Commonwealth as a whole. Where the cost of calculating and collecting a charge might exceed the cost to the agency to process the request, it would generally be more appropriate not to impose a charge.

In assessing the costs of calculating and collecting a charge, agencies should also take into account the likely costs that may be incurred by the agency, as well as other review bodies, if the applicant decides to seek further review.

Given the amount sought by APVMA, and that the decision time seems excessive, I think the agency should consider Rita Lahoud and Department of Education and Training [2016] AICmr 5

Now that the APVMA have reduced their charges estimate to $50 I definitely think Rita Lahoud and Department of Education and Training [2016] AICmr 5 applies, and the costs of collection exceed the amount to be collected.

I recommend putting that to APVMA.

It is now, I believe, beyond the power of the Information Commissioner to review any aspect of the request. The applicant might have requested IC review of the imposed charges, as suggested in the correspondence from the agency on 22 May 2017 ( https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/r... ) but now the request is deemed, under the automatic operation of s 29(2), to have been withdrawn. Against this belief is the fact that under s 53A(e), a decision to impose a charge is an access refusal decision and s 54S(1) allows an applicant 60 days to request IC review of an access refusal decision. I have not been able to find any clarification of whether the deemed withdrawal (which is not an access refusal decision), or the imposition of charges (which is an access refusal decision), will take precedence.

The FOI Commissioner has often taken a non-conservative view of the powers of the Commissioner (z.B. Parnell and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport [2011] AICmr3 at paragraph 8) so if the applicant is interested in seeking IC review, he should not be discouraged by the apparent deemed-withdrawal. He should lodge the IC review request and see what happens.

I do not intend anything in the comment here to speak of the merit or the agency charges.

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