This person's 599 annotations
(page 22)
I do not like to be a messenger carrying the bad news but I think, Mr Fairless, that you do not have a right interpretation of section 20.
Please rea...
Haply I re-read the annotation of Jul 12, 2014 of the applicant (https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/prohibitions_in_making_an_applic#comment-573)....
I had a conversation with email with user Derek. There became a question about whether the version with bold print is correct, or the version with encl...
I expect that the internal review will not change the decision. It is so because it is very unlikely that the documents described from the applicant ex...
The Right to Know website makes so very much plain that a person should not use the site for personal information that I think it would not normally be...
The Constitution of Australia makes the body of section 9 of the Imperial Act 1900 c. 12 (Regnal. 63 and 64 Vict). It is available at the UK Legislatio...
I make this comment about the most recent email of Mr Donnellan only to make it clearer exactly it is a department must do when it has given access to...
The email harbours no request for documents. The statement, "In our [sic] view, your fact sheet has various data that requires correction" is a stateme...
Footnote [2] in the applicant's email of 15 June 2004 is incorrect. The definition of "agency" in s4 of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 is "a Depar...
I believe that this is an exceptionally poor response from the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. It gives the impression, whether or not it is...
This is a note of thanks to Anonymouse-. It is a great satisfaction for a writer to know that her comments, especially when she is trying to be helpful...
Please have a look at the annotation I have made on another request from Ms Anonymouse-. The comments on the page about Centrelink telephone calls (htt...
I do not like to be a harbinger of doom but the applicant, Anonymouse-, I think will have some disappointment unless she changes the application. Fru M...
In my opinion, the reply to the applicant from the Department of Education was exemplary. The decision maker Ms Jenny Komsic has given a very high qual...
The annotation from Mr Fairless made me worry. I started to think that I must write out 100 time "I must be careful to check the law" but in fact, I di...
It is to no purpose to ask the Department why they have not fulfilled their responsibilities "in a timely fashion". Why not? First, because the departm...
I think that this request is about a topic that might be of interest to many Australian people like parents of high school students. But also I think t...
So now I add more today, when I said before that it was a last thought ...
The link for the main document to regulate the Qualifications Framework is...
It is a misfortune to have had your experience but I am very surprised that you could not find information about how to make a complaint. I typed "teqs...
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...
It is unfortunate that Mr Fairless is correct (https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/seach_for_mh370#comment-451); the application shows a good pictur...
This is an annotation to reply to questions asked by Mr Steven Roddis (https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/statistics_on_cybersafety_help_b#comment-...
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...
I wish to make two suggestions; with good fortune, one of them will be helpful. One possibility is to use the Table Builder from the Australian Bureau...
Emendment for the annotation I made 2014:03:28.
I was careless in my typing. Most of the time when I mentioned section 12, I should have said section...