Miss Anonymous

 

I refer to your email dated 28^th July 2024, and received by UTS on 29^th
July 2024, sent via the Right to Know website.

 

Information requested

 

“I am trying to find out the total definite expenditure UTS incurred on
former Science faculty dean Diane Jolley case involving cutting the
traditional science medicine degree.
There are conflicting figures in the media range from $150.000 to
$127,586.93 not including the potential performance bonus as outlined in
the R v Jolley [2021] NSWDC 647 as well as widely in the media at the
time.
Please provide the document that sets out either aggregate or itemised
expenditure that UTS spent on involving the Dianne Jolley case.
I would like to update Wikipedia article about this to reflect the correct
amount the university incurrent expenses on this;
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University...

Invalid access application

 

Your request is not a valid access application under the Government
Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW) [the GIPA Act].

For your application to be valid, we require the following, under s.41 of
the GIPA Act:

 a. it must be in writing sent by post to or lodged at an office of the
agency concerned or made in the manner approved by the agency under
subsection (2),
 b. it must clearly indicate that it is an access application made under
this Act,
 c. it must be accompanied by a fee of $30,
 d. it must state the name of the applicant and a postal or email address
as the address for correspondence in connection with the application,
 e. it must include such information as is reasonably necessary to enable
the government information applied for to be identified.

 

Your application does not comply with s.41(d) as it does not include your
name; and it does not comply with s.41(c), as it does not include the $30
application fee. There is no obligation on UTS to waive or reduce this
application fee.

 

How to make your application a valid application under the GIPA Act

 

To proceed with your application, you can lodge an access application with
UTS directly. We provide an online application form that can be used for
this purpose (a PDF is also available on Forms page

 

You can access our online form and our PDF version from our website page:
[2]https://www.uts.edu.au/about/uts-governa...

 

If you do not wish to use the online form to lodge a formal access
application, you can still pay the application fee using the payment link
on the above webpage (If you wish you can make your request via any method
(for example, by email or mail), so long as the required information is
provided, and the application fee is paid). If you wish to pay by cheque,
there are details provided on our page listed above. Please let us know
via [3][email address] if you make a payment separate to
the online application form.

 

Further information

 

You can find more information about how to make an access application to
UTS under the GIPA Act, on our Right to Information website:
[4]https://www.uts.edu.au/about/uts-governa....
You can also contact us via [5][email address] for further
details.

 

Regards, Deborah

 

 

_ _ _ _

Deborah Naray
Head of Corporate Information

Governance Support Unit
University of Technology Sydney
PO Box 123 Broadway NSW 2007 Australia

 

From: MissAnonymous <[FOI #11783 email]>
Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2024 7:12 PM
To: Right to Information <[UTS request email]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Government Information (Public Access) request - UTS
expenditure related to Diane Jolley case from 2019 to 2021

 

Dear University of Technology Sydney,

Please treat this as an access application pursuant to GIPA Act.

Fees / Charges / Access grant

I have made case separately why this should be either waived, discounted
or the information should be provided informally otherwise here pursuant
to s.51 and s.66 GIPA here: [6]https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/g...

I wish not to repeat the information but refer to my other application
instead for this to apply it.

Access Application

I am trying to find out the total definite expenditure UTS incurred on
former Science faculty dean Diane Jolley case involving cutting the
traditional science medicine degree.

There are conflicting figures in the media range from $150.000 to
$127,586.93 not including the potential performance bonus as outlined in
the R v Jolley [2021] NSWDC 647 as well as widely in the media at the
time.

Please provide the document that sets out either aggregate or itemised
expenditure that UTS spent on involving the Dianne Jolley case.

I would like to update Wikipedia article about this to reflect the correct
amount the university incurrent expenses on this;

[7]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University...

Yours faithfully,

MissAnonymous

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[8][FOI #11783 email]

Is [9][UTS request email] the wrong address for Government
Information (Public Access) requests to University of Technology Sydney?
If so, please contact us using this form:
[10]https://www.righttoknow.org.au/change_re...

This request has been made by an individual using Right to Know. This
message and any reply that you make will be published on the internet.
More information on how Right to Know works can be found at:
[11]https://www.righttoknow.org.au/help/offi...

Please note that in some cases publication of requests and responses will
be delayed.

If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web
manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.

show quoted sections

Miss Anonymous

 

I refer to your request for an internal review of UTS’s decision that your
requests for information from UTS is an invalid access application.

 

Although you have referenced all sections of s.41 in your request for an
internal review, UTS’s decision was based only on the following
sub-sections of s.41:

o s.41(c), whereby an application fee of $30 is required to be paid. UTS
had not waived this fee before your application was lodged (as per
s.51A) and had decided not to waive this fee at this time (as allowed
for under s.127).
o s. 41(d), whereby we require an applicant’s name and contact details.
We acknowledge you have provided contact details and can assume by
virtue of being registered with the Right To Know site, that you are
an individual with the right to lodge an access application. As you
are not seeking access to your own personal information we would take
no steps to validate or confirm any identity provided.  We will
therefore accept that you have provided a name for the purposes of
s.41(d).

Under s.82(1) of the GIPA Act you have a right to request an internal
review of the decision that your access application is invalid on the
grounds the application fee has not been paid. However, a request for
internal review also requires payment of an application fee under s.85(1)
of the GIPA Act. The application fee for requesting an internal review is
$40.

 

As also provided for under s.85(1), UTS has considered whether this fee
will be waived as allowed for under s.127 of the GIPA Act. It has been
decided that the fee will not be waived. Your internal review request is
therefore not accepted as it does not meet the requirements of s.85(1).

 

Please be advised of the following options that are available to you:

 

 1. You have lodged separate applications which have resulted in separate
internal review requests. For your internal review to be considered
you need to pay the $40 internal review application fee.
Alternatively, you may consider revisiting your original access
applications for information relating to Ms Jolley, combining them
into a single application. This will reduce the number of $30
application fees required across the multiple applications submitted.

 

Refer to our website
[1]https://www.uts.edu.au/about/uts-governa...
for information on making a payment and a link to a secure payment
gateway. If you make a payment, please let us know by providing a
remittance once payment has been made.

 

 2. If you are not satisfied with the decisions made by UTS that your
original access application is invalid on the grounds that the
application fee has not be paid, you can appeal those original
decisions externally with either the NSW Information Commissioner,
with the Information Privacy Commission, or the NSW Civil and
Administrative Tribunal (NCAT).

 

Details of deadlines to appeal UTS’s decision with these organisations,
and their contact details are provided below.

+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Avenue for |Time |Contact details |
|review |limit on | |
| |seeking a| |
| |review^* | |
|-------------+---------+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|External |40 |Refer to [2]https://www.ipc.nsw.gov.au/information-a... . |
|review by the|working | |
|NSW |days from|Ph. 1800 472 679 |
|Information |Monday | |
|Commissioner,|5^th | |
|IPC. |August | |
| |2024 | |
|The outcome | | |
|of this | | |
|review may be| | |
|appealed with| | |
|NCAT. | | |
|-------------+---------+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|External |40 |Refer to: |
|review by the|working |[3]https://ncat.nsw.gov.au/ncat/case-types/...
|NCAT. |days from|. |
| |Monday | |
|The outcome |5^th |Ph. 1300 006 228. |
|of this |August | |
|review may be|2024 | |
|appealed via | | |
|NCAT’s Appeal|[a | |
|Panel. |different| |
| |deadline | |
| |for NCAT | |
| |appeal | |
| |will be | |
| |provided | |
| |to you by| |
| |the IPC | |
| |if you | |
| |have | |
| |appealed | |
| |to the | |
| |IPC | |
| |first] | |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

*Working days referred to here, do not include weekends, public holidays,
or formal university or public sector holiday closure periods

 

Regards, Deborah

 

 

_ _ _ _

Deborah Naray
Head of Corporate Information

Governance Support Unit
University of Technology Sydney
T. +61 (02) 9514 1245
PO Box 123 Broadway NSW 2007 Australia

 

From: MissAnonymous <[FOI #11783 email]>
Sent: Monday, August 5, 2024 11:44 AM
To: Deborah Naray <[email address]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Internal review of Government Information (Public
Access) request - UTS expenditure related to Diane Jolley case from 2019
to 2021

 

Dear University of Technology Sydney ("UTS")

Attn Deborah Naray / GIPA Officer

I refer to my access application;

Re: UTS expenditure related to Diane Jolley case from 2019 to 2021

Pursuant to s.80(a) of Government Information (Public Access) ("GIPA") Act
2009

(a) a decision that an application is not a valid access application

The decision is reviewable pursuant to s.82 of GIPA Act

I request internal review on;

a) s.41(a) contains the working "or lodged at an office of the agency
concerned" that is in effect "writing" under the Electronic Transactions
Act ("ETA") - By lodging this to your e-mail address
[4][UTS request email] I consider the s.41(a) lodged at an
office of the agency fullfilled

I further refer to ETA s. 13B(1) and(2) regards to location of dispatch &
receipt as to "lodging at"

b) Nothing in the GIPA Act provides any form of formal requirement as to
refer to the act explicitly - Nonetheless I referred to it and made a
reference to my other application as to the framework to save effort in
deciding the access application. For the avoidance of doubt I confirm that
this is an access application under the GIPA Act. I neither see any agency
addenum as to reasonable extended requirement to refer to the act in
strict manner either.

c) The statute of 41(1)(c) should not be read in isolation without
considering the matters that have an effect in relation to [sic] "a fee" -
furthermore I refer to GIPA Act s.51A that explicitly sets out;

51A Effect of waiver, reduction or refund of application fee

(1) An agency is not to treat an application as being an invalid access
application

UTS must provide consideration as to waiver and / or refund as I have
requested - and referred in my application given s.41 in addition has
explicit reference to s. 51A to consider the waiver and / or refund.

UTS is obligated to take s. 66 - special public benefit - of GIPA Act into
account when considering the "fee" pursuant to s.41 and s.51A given the
request originates from a provable special public benefit platform known
as Right To Know ("RTK") that is operated by the non-profit Open Australia
Foundation - where the information is published for automatically -
without any consideration by the user of the platform.

Given UTS incurred significant financial expenditure relating to the R v
Jolley case this information is deemed public interest under the GIPA Act
automatically favoring the disclosure.

In addition UTS did not consider refunding the "fee" pursuant to GIPA Act
s. 127 that is referred also from s.51A in addition to Government
Information (Public Access) Regulations 2018 that is referred in effect to
regulations s. 10(c) regards to dealing with application from non-profit
organisation that includes - but is not required - it's beneficial users
applying on behalf of where one could reasonably put forward that users of
RTK platform are automatically applying for the public interest or
non-profit purposes relevant to the regulations or the ordinary effect of
the statutes overall -

10 Discounted processing charge

An agency is required to reduce, by 50%, the processing charge payable
under the Act for dealing with an access application if the applicant
provides evidence that the applicant—

(c) is a non-profit organisation (including a person applying for or on
behalf of a non-profit organisation).

Disclaimer: I am only a user of RTK and not otherwise involved but I hold
that the purpose is meaningful under the waiver meaning that has been left
open what it means given it includes the word "include" and "require"

GIPA s.66(2) also provides that any processing charge/s is to be waived if
the information was not in publcly available priori and given Right To
Know autotomatically publishes the received informaton fullfilling the
requirement in it's statutory ordinary meaning.

d) Under the ETA Act both the name and the e-mail address was provided in
the internet technical standardised e-mail headers pursuant to s. 9(1) -
this has been upheld at federal level where Australian Taxation Office
("ATO") attempted to avoid transacting via Right To Know ("RTK") platform
that provides e-mail address to applicants. There is no provision as to
attestation of the name and I consider my name MissAnonymous" a name that
fulfils the meaning of "name" pursuant the GIPA Act s. 41(1)(d)

e) I understand there was no issue of identifying the information
required.

For your convenience this access application is available optionally via
web if needed:

[5]https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/u...

Yours sincerely,

MissAnonymous

show quoted sections