APSC produced document for the IPA

Fliccy made this Freedom of Information request to Australian Public Service Commission

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

The request was partially successful.

Dear Australian Public Service Commission,

The following is an FOI request.

I refer the APSC to the following media coverage:

https://www.crikey.com.au/2017/10/24/lib...

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/national...

https://www.themandarin.com.au/85236-thr...

As I understand, that media coverage relates to this FOI decision: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/i... and specifically, the production of a 13 page document by APSC staff (titled “Examples of ‘soft’ arrangements in Commonwealth enterprise agreements” (the “APSC produced document for the IPA”) beginning at page 16 of this document https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/3... ) for the use and benefit of far right wing political extremist group, the Institute of Public Affairs (the ‘IPA’) – a political group for which the current Public Service Commissioner is a contributing member, and former director.

As I understand from the articles and the FOI documents referred to above, certain APSC staff consider it an appropriate use of scarce Commonwealth resources/taxpayer money to provide research and authoring services to the IPA in order to further the political objectives of the IPA and its membership (including the Public Service Commissioner).

I request access to all documents held by the APSC that relate to the APSC produced document for the IPA.

To narrow the scope of my request I am willing for it to relate only to email documents (ie. emails and any attachments to those emails) and I am willing for the APSC to disregard all but the last email in email chains/threads (but only on the basis that the preceding emails in those email chains will be included in the last email of those email chains). I am also willing for the APSC to disregard any documents within the scope of my request that have already been made available here: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/3...

The APSC staff who took part in the preparation of the APSC produced document for the IPA have likely acted illegally (noting the obligations, prohibitions and criminal offences established by the Public Service Act 1999, the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 and the Criminal Code Act 1995) and so part of the purpose of my request is to ensure that those officers are brought to justice.

While I understand that the Public Service Commissioner was intimately involved in the preparation of the document at issue, I understand that other APSC staff had some involvement in the preparation of the document.

I note, for example, from pg 9 of 32 of the document available here: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/3... that the APSC’s Group Manager Corporate thinks it appropriate to copy in members of the IPA into intra senior management APSC communications as if those IPA members are on the APSC’s/Commonwealth’s payroll and part of the APSC’s senior management team and so perhaps the APSC’s Group Manager Corporate played some part in the preparation of the document at issue.

I remind the APSC of the following:

- the objects of the FOI Act which relevantly include “increasing scrutiny, discussion, comment and review of the Government’s activities”, “increasing recognition that information held by the Government is to be managed for public purposes, and is a national resource” and “that functions and powers given by [the FOI 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”.
- the criminal offence established by section 24 of the Archives Act 1983; and
- the obligations imposed on APSC staff by the Public Service Act 1999 (in particular the obligations to behave honestly, apolitically, with integrity and transparently) and the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013.

Further, if any member of the APSC’s Legal Group who holds a practising certificate processes this request (or indeed if they were involved in the preparation of the document at issue), I remind those APSC officers of their professional obligations in relation to their paramount duty to the administration of justice and to avoid any conduct which may be seen to compromise their integrity and professional independence.

I also note relevant advice from the FOI Guidelines that provides that “[w]here public servants’ personal information is included in a document because of their usual duties or responsibilities, it would not be unreasonable to disclose unless special circumstances existed” and that “[w]hen considering whether it would be unreasonable to disclose the names of public servants, there is no basis under the FOI Act for agencies to start from the position that the classification level of a departmental officer determines whether his or her name would be unreasonable to disclose. In seeking to claim the exemption an agency needs to identify the special circumstances which exist rather than start from the assumption that such information is exempt.”

Lastly, I note that it would be clearly improper (at least from the perspective of an ethical, honest and law abiding public servant) for this request to be processed by any person who has any affiliation whatsoever with the Liberal Party, the IPA or any other far right wing political extremist group. To the extent that there are any authorised officers at the APSC who have no such affiliations, I request that they process this request independently of other APSC officers who are affiliated with extremist groups of that persuasion.

Dear Australian Public Service Commission,

Here's a link to another article on this matter for your consideration. It was written by a public sector ethics expert who considers that the APSC staff involved in this incident have acted illegally:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/national...

Obviously, there's a wide public interest in circumstances where highly paid senior officials (including an agency head) at an agency charged with "promot[ing] high standards of integrity and conduct in the APS" act illegally.

FOI, Australian Public Service Commission

Dear Fliccy,

I acknowledge receipt of request dated 2 November 2017 seeking access to documents under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) (the FOI Act). A copy of your request can be found below.

The statutory timeframe for responding to your request under the FOI Act is 30 days from the date of receipt. This timeframe may be extended in certain circumstances. We will advise you if such circumstances arise.

The department will advise you if a charge is payable to process your request and the amount of any such charge as soon as practicable.

Should you have any questions in relation to your request, please contact the FOI team by reply email.

Kind regards,

FOI Officer
Legal Services

Australian Public Service Commission
Treasury Building, Parkes Place West, Parkes ACT 2600 GPO Box 3176, Canberra ACT 2601

show quoted sections

FOI, Australian Public Service Commission

1 Attachment

Dear Applicant,

Please find attached correspondence relating to your request.

Regards,

FOI Officer
Legal Services

Australian Public Service Commission
Treasury Building, Parkes Place West, Parkes ACT 2600 GPO Box 3176, Canberra ACT 2601

show quoted sections

Dear FOI,

I am writing in response to the APSC’s letter of 15 November 2017 advising that I am liable to pay a charge, preliminarily assessed to be $233.77, for the processing of my FOI request dated 2 November 2017.

I contend that charge should not be imposed because release of the documents is in the general public interest, including because those documents will tend to demonstrate that the Public Service Commissioner, and potentially other members of the Australian Public Service Commission’s (APSC’s) senior management team have engaged in serious and unlawful misconduct. My submissions in support of my contention follow.

[1] The Public Service Act 1999 requires that public servants be impartial and apolitical (s.10(5)) and that public servants be engaged by way of a merit based selection process (s.10A(2)). Pursuant to paragraph 41(1)(b) of the Public Service Act 1999, the Public Service Commissioner is required to uphold high standards of integrity and conduct in the Australian Public Service.

[2] In December 2015, Mr John Lloyd was appointed to the position of Public Service Commissioner in the absence of a merit-based selection process after being offered the job over the phone by Senator Eric Abetz: http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/sear....

[3] Immediately prior to his appointment, Mr Lloyd was a member of the Liberal Party and also a Director and member of far-right wing ‘think tank’ and political lobby group, the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA): https://westerncivilisation.ipa.org.au/p....

[4] Mr Lloyd remains a contributing member of the IPA: http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/down... (pp.93-94)

[5] Among its political objectives, the IPA seeks the abolition of large swathes of the Australian public service: http://ipa.org.au/publications-ipa/ipa-r....

[6] Earlier this year, in response to a freedom of information request (https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/i... ) seeking copies of correspondence between the APSC and the IPA, the APSC provided access to the following document: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/3... (the 32 page “FOI document”).

[7] Document 4 (beginning at page 12 of the 32 page FOI document) concerns the production of a 13-page document (beginning at page 16 of the FOI document), researched and prepared by APSC staff, at the direction of John Lloyd, titled ‘Examples of ‘soft’ arrangements in Commonwealth enterprise agreements” (the ‘IPA document’).

[8] The IPA document has been produced following a discussion between John Lloyd and his colleagues at the IPA, for the purposes of an article to be produced by the IPA. The IPA document was not made publicly available (other than in response to a FOI request). In effect, the IPA document was researched, prepared and produced by Commonwealth public servants for the use and benefit of the IPA.

[9] In response to being provided with the APSC produced document, the IPA thanked Mr Lloyd indicating that the document is ‘very handy’ (see pg 12 of 32 of the FOI document). Indeed it was. The IPA subsequently prepared and published an article later that year titled “Driving a soft bargain” examining the Commonwealth Public Sector Enterprise Agreements 2011 – 2014” (available here: https://ipa.org.au/publications-ipa/rese...) which criticises what the IPA perceives to be the overly generous pay and conditions of rank and file Commonwealth public servants.

[10] The IPA’s article is substantially based on the APSC produced IPA document. There are considerable portions of the IPA’s article that plagiarise, in many cases word for word, information contained in the APSC produced IPA document. For example, paragraphs 1 to 3 of the APSC produced IPA document reads as follows:
1. Over the past decade, APS employees have enjoyed wage increases substantially above CPI.
2. During this time, APS remuneration increases totalled 50.7 per cent, compared to CPI increases of 31.8 per cent. That is more than most other industries.
3. In addition to these generous wages, Commonwealth public sector agreements have accumulated other generous terms and conditions. These go beyond those provided by minimum safety nets, often well above community standards.

Page 24 of the IPA article contains the following passages:
Over the past decade, APS employees have enjoyed wage increases substantially above CPI. During this time, APS remuneration increases totalled 50.7 per cent, compared to CPI increases of 31.8 per cent. That is more than most other industries.
[…]
In addition to these generous wages, Commonwealth public sector agreements have
accumulated other generous terms and conditions. These go beyond those provided by minimum safety nets, often well above community standards.

[11} Another example is that at paragraph 19 of the APSC produced IPA document (on page 6 of that document) which reads as follows:
19. Most APS agreements contain prescriptive arrangements which guarantee union delegates access to use workplace facilities, infrastructure, technology and resources for the purposes of carrying out their role with their union. […]

Page 21 of the IPA article contains the following passage:
All agreements contain prescriptive arrangements which guarantee union delegates access to use workplace facilities, infrastructure, technology and resources – and paid time – for the purposes of carrying out their role with their union.

[12] The IPA’s article does not acknowledge or attribute the APSC prepared IPA document. Effectively, the APSC, at Mr Lloyd’s direction, has provided taxpayer funded research and writing services to Mr Lloyd’s colleagues and fellow members at the IPA in order to pursue the political objectives of the IPA and its members (which include Mr Lloyd). At the direction of John Lloyd, the APSC has been used as a research outpost facility for a far-right think tank and political lobby group of which Mr Lloyd is a longstanding member and former staffer.

[13] The IPA then proceeded to use the article as the basis for its submission in support of the Government’s enterprise bargaining policy for the public service to the recently conducted Senate inquiry into the Government’s workplace bargaining policy for the public service (https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus... ).

[14] The IPA’s submission to that Senate inquiry is here: http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx.... The IPA’s submission to that inquiry, together with the APSC’s submission, are the only submissions to that inquiry, of the 503 lodged, in support of the Government’s bargaining policy for the public service. The IPA’s submission does not acknowledge or attribute the APSC produced IPA document, despite that the IPA’s submission has effectively been ‘ghost written’ by the APSC at the direction of John Lloyd.

[15] The IPA then used the APSC produced IPA documents as the basis for its oral submissions at that inquiry (see here: http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/sear...).

[16] Mr Lloyd was present at the Senate Inquiry’s public hearing but did not disclose the APSC’s role in the preparing the IPA document which formed the basis of the IPA’s written and oral submissions.

[17] The Coalition Senators' Dissenting Report resulting from that Senate Inquiry (available here: http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Busi...) is substantially based on the IPA’s submission, which is based on the work done by the APSC, at the direction of John Lloyd, for the use and benefit of the IPA.

[18] By the actions set out above, it is apparent that Mr Lloyd, and potentially other members of the APSC’s senior management team have acted illegally by contravening:
• subsections 13(1), 13(7), 13(8), 13(10) and 13(11) of the Public Service Act 1999;
• sections 26, 27, 28 and 29 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013; and
• section 142.2 (abuse of public office) of the Criminal Code Act 1995.

[19] I note that Mr Lloyd’s misconduct has been the subject of a range of media coverage including:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/national...

https://www.crikey.com.au/2017/10/24/lib...

https://www.themandarin.com.au/85236-thr...

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/national...

[20] I further note that with a total annual remuneration of $692,500, Mr Lloyd is one the highest paid statutory office holders in the Commonwealth, being paid some 50% more than the Commonwealth Ombudsman and Australia’s Chief Scientist and almost twice as much as the Information Commissioner: http://www.remtribunal.gov.au/media/docu... .

[21] In the interests of transparency and the maintenance of an apolitical, impartial and uncorrupted Australia Public Service that adheres to the rule of law, it is very much in the general public interest that the APSC release any documents associated with the serious misconduct set out above such that the administration of justice in relation to these matters is not hindered.

[22] The matters set out above indicate that Mr Lloyd and the APSC’s senior management team use scarce Commonwealth/taxpayer resources to assist the political purposes of a far-right wing political lobby group (of which Mr Lloyd is a longstanding member). I note that while Mr Lloyd is willing to direct the wholly improper use of Commonwealth resources to enrich the IPA and further its political objectives without charging that lobby group for the taxpayer services provided - when it comes to providing access to Government information held by the APSC on behalf of the public, the APSC has sought to impose a substantial charge with a view to avoiding the public scrutiny associated with a serious misuse of Commonwealth resources.

[23] Other documents contained in the FOI document demonstrate the level with which the IPA has infiltrated the APSC. For example, document 3, which begins on page 9 of the FOI document demonstrates that the IPA is comfortable contacting the APSC’s Group Manager, Corporate advising the APSC of political material that may be of interest to Mr Lloyd, to which the APSC’s Group Manager, Corporate responds by immediately referring that information to members of the APSC’s senior management team including by copying in the IPA staff member as if that person were a member of the APSC’s senior management team. Under Mr Lloyd’s direction, the APSC has become a puppet of the IPA.

[24] I now turn to the authors of the IPA article – Mr Aaron Lane and Mr James Paterson – and additional aspects of the public interest that will be served by the release of the documents the subject of my request, without a charge being imposed.

[25] One author of the IPA article, now Senator James Paterson, chaired the recently conducted Senate inquiry into the Government’s workplace bargaining policy for the public service (https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus... ).

[26] Despite the requirements of the Senate Standing Orders, Senator Paterson failed to disclose to the Committee that the IPA’s submission to that Committee’s inquiry was almost entirely based upon the IPA article which he co-authored and which itself is largely based on, and plagiarises, the APSC produced IPA document. It is in the general public interest that such misconduct on the part of a Parliamentarian be referred to the Senate Privileges Committee and the production of the documents the subject of my request will shine further light on the extent of Senator Paterson’s misconduct.

[27] The other author of the IPA article is Mr Aaron Lane. Mr Lane’ character is set out here: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/libera.... I note Mr Lane is currently a lecturer at RMIT University and is subject to a range of policies concerning academic misconduct (which encompass plagiarism). There is a general public interest in ensuring that Australia’s tertiary intuitions are not staffed by homophobic academics who engage in academic misconduct.

[28] An additional public interest aspect served by the release of the documents the subject of my request without charge relates to the copyright that subsists in the APSC produced IPA document that vests with the Crown/Commonwealth. Subject to the existence of a licensing agreement that permitted the plagiarising of the APSC produced IPA document as set out above, the Crown’s copyright comprised in the APSC produced IPA document has been exercised and infringed by:
- the IPA;
- Mr Aaron Lane (a co –author of the IPA article);
- Mr James Paterson (current Senator and co-author of the IPA article); and
- RMIT University (who published the IPA article).

[29] It would be highly unusual, and would constitute a violation of the Government’s Intellectual Property Rules (https://www.communications.gov.au/policy...) for the APSC to have granted the authors of the IPA article, or the IPA itself, a copyright licence to exploit the APSC produced IPA document in the manner described above. There is a wide public interest in the enforcement of the Crown’s copyright and the documents the subject of my request will demonstrate whether the APSC granted the IPA a licence to exercise the rights comprised in the copyright that subsists in the APSC produced IPA document.

Dear FOI,

Further to my email to you of 15 December 2017 setting out why the release of the documents the subject of my request is in the general public interest, I refer the APSC to the following article published today: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/national... by Fairfax papers.

The article indicates that the Public Service Commissioner, Mr John Lloyd, has refused to comply with a Senate Committee request for details of communications between Mr Lloyd and far right wing political lobby group, the Institute of Public Affairs (of which Mr Lloyd is a long standing member and former staffer), presumably because doing so would further demonstrate Mr Lloyd's malfeasance in, and abuse of, public office.

This information supplements and supports my submissions in respect of this matter - clearly there is a general public interest in shining a light on the corrupt practices of the most senior, and most highly remunerated, public servants.

FOI, Australian Public Service Commission

1 Attachment

Dear Applicant,

I refer to your correspondence of 15 December 2017, as below.

Please see attached the determination about the applicable charges.

Yours sincerely,

FOI Officer
Legal Services

Australian Public Service Commission
Treasury Building, Parkes Place West, Parkes ACT 2600 GPO Box 3176, Canberra ACT 2601

show quoted sections

FOI, Australian Public Service Commission

1 Attachment

UNCLASSIFIED

FOI Reference C17/2088

 

Good afternoon FOI Applicant

 

I refer to your FOI request lodged on 2 November 2017, where you sought
access to documents relating to all documents held by the APSC that relate
to the APSC produced document for the IPA, as outlined in the attached
email.

 

As you are aware the Information Commissioner wrote to the yourself and
the APSC on 6 April 2018 confirming the section 55F agreement signed by
the parties.

 

The APSC has recommenced processing of your request in accordance with the
section 55F agreement. 

 

It has been determined following assessment of the documents that it is
necessary for the Commission to conduct formal consultation with affected
third parties as required by sections 27 and or 27A of the FOI Act.

 

As such, in accordance with section 15(6)(a) of the FOI Act, the
processing time for responding to your request has been extended by 30
days.  The statutory due date for you to receive a decision will fall due
on 6 June 2018.

 

Kind regards

 

 

FOI Coordinator

Legal Services

 

Australian Public Service Commission

Level 4, B Block, Treasury Building

Parkes Place West, Parkes ACT 2600

Email: [1][email address]

 

 

Important: This e-mail is for the use of the intended recipients only and
may contain information that is confidential, commercially valuable and/or
subject to legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient you are
notified that any review, re-transmission,

disclosure, dissemination or other use of, or taking any action in
reliance upon this information is prohibited. If you have received this
e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all
electronic and hard copies of this transmission together with any
attachments.

 

 

 

Important: This email remains the property of the Commonwealth and is
subject to the jurisdiction of section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914. It may
contain confidential or legally privileged information. If you think it
was sent to you by mistake, please delete all copies and advise the
sender.

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]

FOI, Australian Public Service Commission

UNCLASSIFIED

FOI Reference C17/2088

 

Good afternoon Fliccy

 

I refer to your FOI request as detailed below.

 

The statutory timeframe for you to receive your decision falls due on 6
June 2018.

 

The decision maker is currently assessing the documents relevant to your
request and has determined that there are a number of duplicate documents.
 As such, are you agreeable for duplicates to be removed from the scope of
the request?

 

In addition there are a number of draft versions of the documents titled
Examples of 'soft' arrangements in Commonwealth Enterprise agreements.  To
limit the number of pages and number of documents you receive, are you
agreeable to being provided with the final version of those documents, or
do you require all draft versions of those documents?

 

Could you please respond by COB Wed 23 May 2018.  In the event that we do
not receive your response by this time, we will assume that you are
agreeable to removing duplicates and draft versions.

 

Kind regards

 

 

FOI Coordinator

Legal Services

 

Australian Public Service Commission

Level 4, B Block, Treasury Building

Parkes Place West, Parkes ACT 2600

E: [email address]

 

Important: This e-mail is for the use of the intended recipients only and
may contain information that is confidential, commercially valuable and/or
subject to legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient you are
notified that any review, re-transmission,

disclosure, dissemination or other use of, or taking any action in
reliance upon this information is prohibited. If you have received this
e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all
electronic and hard copies of this transmission together with any
attachments.

 

show quoted sections

Dear FOI,

My request, made seven months ago, was for “all documents held by the APSC that relate to the APSC produced document for the IPA.”

That includes not only all duplicates and drafts, but file notes, instant messages (lync, whatsapp or other), text messages, voice mail messages, emails, meeting agendas, meeting minutes, meeting notes, marked-up edits and comments (with authors/editors identified), memos, post it notes and audit details of active events against relevant documents held in workflow/HPRM /TRIM (demonstrating which APSC staff members accessed, created and modified relevant documents and the changes they may have made and when) that in any way relate to the APSC produced document for the IPA (whether it be the genesis and preparation of that document, its use, its audience, its recipients (including all third party recipients), its contents, decisions made in respect of the doucment, its distribution or otherwise).

I do not agree to any reduction in scope of the documents the subject of my request.

The APSC’s General Counsel, in recognition of the public interest in these matters, has entered into a binding agreement on behalf of the APSC to waive any charges in relation to my request.

To process my request in accordance with the requirements of the FOI Act and the Public Service Act 1999, the APSC will need to conduct detailed and thorough searches of the APSC’s document management systems but also the document holdings of every APSC staff member, current and former, who had any involvement, even if only peripherally, in relation to the APSC produced document for the IPA. Relevant documents will be held by IPA affiliated APSC staff who were deeply involved in the matter (J Lloyd, M [Name removed at request of APSC], C Page, C Kelly) but the APSC will also need to conduct thorough searches of the archived document holdings (maintained in accordance with the requirements of the Archives Act 1983) of APSC staff who had some involvement with the document but that have since left the APSC (eg. L Poole, S Foster).

I reject Ms [Name removed at request of APSC]’s spurious claim that releasing the names of the APSC staff members involved in this matter would be unreasonable including because that would expose those staff members to “public scrutiny”. That claim has been made for an improper purpose and runs contra not only to the requirements of subsections 10(4) and 13(1) of the Public Service Act 1999 but also the objects of the FOI Act, including Parliament’s intention expressed at paragraph 3(2)(b) of the FOI Act.

I require the names of each APSC officer involved with this matter including for the purposes of the Public Service Act 1999, the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013, the Criminal Code Act 1995, the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 and the Legal Profession (Solicitors) Conduct Rules 2015. If APSC staff involved in this matter have complied with their legal and ethical obligations, they have nothing to fear.

Resolution of these matters is of wide public interest, not least because resolution will offer invaluable guidance to all APS staff as to what constitutes allowable conduct in respect of their relationships with, and the provision of information and services to, political lobby groups (while at work or otherwise). Resolution of these matters will also provide public servants with invaluable advice as to the extent of their obligations to behave in an apolitical and impartial manner. Clearly, the APSC is not in a position to adjudicate or otherwise resolve these matters in an apolitical, independent and objective manner.

FOI, Australian Public Service Commission

1 Attachment

UNCLASSIFIED

Good afternoon Fliccy

 

Thank your for your email.

 

I note your original FOI request stated:

 

I request access to all documents held by the APSC that relate to the APSC
produced document for the IPA.

To narrow the scope of my request I am willing for it to relate only to
email documents (ie. emails and any attachments to those emails) and I am
willing for the APSC to disregard all but the last email in email
chains/threads (but only on the basis that the preceding emails in those
email chains will be included in the last email of those email chains). I
am also willing for the APSC to disregard any documents within the scope
of my request that have already been made available here:
[1]https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/3...
(bold is APSC emphasis)

 

I note you have now sought to expand the scope of your request to include
access to instant messages (lync, whatsapp or other), text messages, voice
mail messages, emails, meeting agendas, meeting minutes, meeting notes,
marked-up edits and comments (with authors/editors identified), memos,
post it notes and audit details of active events against relevant
documents held in workflow/HPRM /TRIM (demonstrating which APSC staff
members accessed, created and modified relevant documents and the changes
they may have made and when) that in any way relate to the APSC produced
document for the IPA (whether it be the genesis and preparation of that
document, its use, its audience, its recipients (including all third party
recipients), its contents, decisions made in respect of the document, its
distribution or otherwise.

 

The APSC not agreed to the expansion of the scope of your request.  As
such, your request will be processed as per the original scope of your
request and as you have agreed, limited to email documents. 

 

Kind regards

FOI Coordinator

Legal Services

 

Australian Public Service Commission

Level 4, B Block, Treasury Building

Parkes Place West, Parkes ACT 2600

E: [email address]

 

Important: This e-mail is for the use of the intended recipients only and
may contain information that is confidential, commercially valuable and/or
subject to legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient you are
notified that any review, re-transmission,

disclosure, dissemination or other use of, or taking any action in
reliance upon this information is prohibited. If you have received this
e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all
electronic and hard copies of this transmission together with any
attachments.

 

 

 

 

 

show quoted sections

Dear FOI,

Thanks for that - right you are.

I'd like to make an FOI request for access to all documents held by the APSC that relate to the APSC produced document for the IPA. Those documents include, but are not limited to, instant messages (lync, whatsapp or other), text messages, voice mail messages, emails, meeting agendas, meeting minutes, meeting notes, marked-up edits and comments (with authors/editors identified), memos,
post it notes and audit details of active events against relevant documents held in workflow/HPRM /TRIM (demonstrating which APSC staff members accessed, created and modified relevant documents and the changes they may have made and when) that in any way relate to the APSC produced document for the IPA (whether it be the genesis and preparation of that document, its use, its audience, its recipients (including all third party recipients), its contents, decisions made in respect of the document, its distribution or otherwise.

Noting those documents will tend to demonstrate illegal activities engaged in by APSC staff and the Public Service Commissioner, there's a wide public interest in their production.

Thanks.

FOI, Australian Public Service Commission

UNCLASSIFIED

FOI Reference:  C18/1032

 

Dear Fliccy

Acknowledgement of FOI request

 

The Australian Public Service Commission (the Commission) acknowledges
receipt of your request under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth)
(FOI Act), seeking access to the following documents:

 

‘…that relate to the APSC produced document for the IPA. Those documents
include, but are not limited to, instant messages (lync, whatsapp or
other), text messages, voice mail messages, emails, meeting agendas,
meeting minutes, meeting notes, marked-up edits and comments (with
authors/editors identified), memos, post it notes and audit details of
active events against relevant documents held in workflow/HPRM /TRIM
(demonstrating which APSC staff members accessed, created and modified
relevant documents and the changes they may have made and when) that in
any way relate to the APSC produced document for the IPA (whether it be
the genesis and preparation of that document, its use, its audience, its
recipients (including all third party recipients), its contents, decisions
made in respect of the document, its distribution or otherwise…’

 

The statutory timeframe for responding to your request under the FOI Act
is 30 days from the date of receipt.  This timeframe may be extended in
certain circumstances, and we will advise you if such circumstances arise,
or if there is a need to conduct formal consultation with affected third
parties.  Such consultation may also extend the processing time in
accordance with sections 27 and 27A [Consultation – business documents and
personal privacy] of the FOI Act.

 

Please note, section 22 of the FOI Act allows agencies to exclude or
redact certain information from a request if it is deemed to be irrelevant
to the scope of the request.  The Commission’s policy is to exclude the
personal details of the Commissions or APSC officers, such as names,
signatures, direct phone and mobile numbers contained in documents that
fall within the scope of an FOI request, unless you specifically request
access to such details.  The Commission’s policy is also to exclude
duplicates of documents, and documents sent to, or received from you, as
the FOI applicant unless you specifically request that duplicate documents
be provided to you. 

 

Should you have any questions relating to your request, please do not
hesitate to contact our office via email to [email address]

 

Kind regards,

 

 

FOI Officer

Legal Services

 

Australian Public Service Commission

Treasury Building, Parkes Place West, Parkes ACT 2600

GPO Box 3176, Canberra ACT 2601

Email:  [email address]

 

 

show quoted sections

Dear FOI,

Your email dated 24 May 2018 says “The Commission’s policy is to exclude the personal details of the Commissions or APSC officers, such as names, signatures, direct phone and mobile numbers contained in documents that fall within the scope of an FOI request, unless you specifically request access to such details”

That’s a policy that has no basis in law as well as being a policy that is precisely the opposite to that espoused by the Information Commissioner in the FOI Guidelines made under s.93A of the FOI Act.

As I’ve previously indicated, I require the names of each APSC officer involved with this matter including for the purposes of the Public Service Act 1999, the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013, the Criminal Code Act 1995, the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 and the Legal Profession (Solicitors) Conduct Rules 2015. If APSC staff involved in this matter have complied with their legal and ethical obligations, they have nothing to fear.

Dear FOI,

On 1 May 2018, the APSC wrote to me to indicate that for my FOI request made on 2 November 2017, "[t]he statutory due date for you to receive a decision will fall due on 6 June 2018". What happened?

FOI, Australian Public Service Commission

1 Attachment

UNCLASSIFIED
FOI Reference: C17/2088

Good afternoon Fliccy

Please find attached correspondence relating to your FOI request.

Regards

FOI Coordinator
Legal Services

Australian Public Service Commission
Level 4, B Block, Treasury Building
Parkes Place West, Parkes ACT 2600
E: [email address]

Important: This e-mail is for the use of the intended recipients only and may contain information that is confidential, commercially valuable and/or subject to legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that any review, re-transmission,
disclosure, dissemination or other use of, or taking any action in reliance upon this information is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all electronic and hard copies of this transmission together with any attachments.

show quoted sections

FOI, Australian Public Service Commission

1 Attachment

UNCLASSIFIED
Good afternoon ‘Fliccy’

Please find attached correspondence relevant to your FOI request lodged on 23 May 2018 as detailed below.

Regards

FOI Coordinator
Legal Services

Australian Public Service Commission
Level 4, B Block, Treasury Building
Parkes Place West, Parkes ACT 2600
E: [email address]

Important: This e-mail is for the use of the intended recipients only and may contain information that is confidential, commercially valuable and/or subject to legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that any review, re-transmission,
disclosure, dissemination or other use of, or taking any action in reliance upon this information is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all electronic and hard copies of this transmission together with any attachments.

show quoted sections

Dear FOI,

Pursuant to section 54 of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the FOI Act), I seek internal review of [Name removed at request of APSC] [Name removed at request of APSC]’s decision of 7 June 2018 to refuse access to the documents the subject of my request made under the FOI Act on 2 November 2017.

My request made under the FOI Act on 2 November 2017 concerned:
“[…] a 13 page document by APSC staff (titled “Examples of ‘soft’ arrangements in Commonwealth enterprise agreements” (the “APSC produced document for the IPA”) beginning at page 16 of this document https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/3...) for the use and benefit of far right wing political extremist group, the Institute of Public Affairs (the ‘IPA’) – a political group for which the current Public Service Commissioner is a contributing member, and former director.”

Specifically, I sought access to:
“[…] all documents held by the APSC that relate to the APSC produced document for the IPA.”

On 7 June 2018, [Name removed at request of APSC] [Name removed at request of APSC], being the Group Manager of the APSC team that prepared “the APSC produced document for the IPA”, refused access to the documents the subject of my request on the basis that the APSC produced document for the IPA:
“[…] was not “prepared for the IPA” ” – just that the IPA happened to be the only recipient of that document and therefore, according to Mr [Name removed at request of APSC], no related documents exist.

My submissions in support of my application for internal review of Mr [Name removed at request of APSC]’s access refusal decision are as follows.

[1] My FOI request of 2 November 2017 sought copies of all documents held by the APSC that relate to ““[…] a 13 page document [prepared] by APSC staff (titled “Examples of ‘soft’ arrangements in Commonwealth enterprise agreements” […] beginning at page 16 of this document https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/3...

[2] To simplify my request, I abbreviated reference to the “13 page document [prepared] by APSC staff (titled “Examples of ‘soft’ arrangements in Commonwealth enterprise agreements” […] beginning at page 16 of this document https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/3... by referring to it, for the purposes of my FOI request, as the “APSC produced document for the IPA”.

[3] The use of abbreviated references is a commonly used and understood literary technique. Mr [Name removed at request of APSC] is aware of this, not least because Mr [Name removed at request of APSC] uses the same literary technique in the work that he does for the Institute of Public Affairs (or, using an abbreviated reference, “the IPA”) while as a Commonwealth public servant. See, for example, Mr [Name removed at request of APSC]’s email to his colleagues at the IPA at page 5 of the document here: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/3... .

[4] An abbreviated reference need not necessarily bear any relationship to the document, entity or thing to which it refers. For example, one might abbreviate reference to the “13 page document [prepared] by APSC staff (titled “Examples of ‘soft’ arrangements in Commonwealth enterprise agreements” […] beginning at page 16 of this document https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/3... by referring to it as: i) “document(s) indicating [Name removed at request of APSC] [Name removed at request of APSC] was given advance notice of questions to be asked by Government senators at Senate Estimates”; or ii) “document(s) indicating the [Name removed at request of APSC] [Name removed at request of APSC] has given misleading information to the FWC” - but those abbreviated references would still be references to the “13 page document [prepared] by APSC staff (titled “Examples of ‘soft’ arrangements in Commonwealth enterprise agreements” […] beginning at page 16 of this document https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/3....

[5] In the same way, even if it were true, as [Name removed at request of APSC] [Name removed at request of APSC] asserts, that the APSC produced document for the IPA, “[…] was not “prepared for the IPA” ”, the abbreviated reference of “the APSC produced document for the IPA” remains a reference to the “13 page document [prepared] by APSC staff (titled “Examples of ‘soft’ arrangements in Commonwealth enterprise agreements” […] beginning at page 16 of this document https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/3.... In any case, regardless of whether the APSC produced document for the IPA, was or wasn’t initially prepared for the IPA, it is not in dispute that the document was prepared by the APSC, and provided to the IPA, to advance the political agenda of the IPA – and so it is accurate to refer to the document as “the APSC produced document for the IPA”.

[6] Accordingly, I am of the view that Mr [Name removed at request of APSC]’s decision to refuse access to the documents the subject of my request has been incorrectly and dishonestly made:
i) for purposes that run contra to the objects of the FOI Act,
ii) for the purpose of hindering scrutiny of the unethical and illegal practices of senior APSC staff; and
iii) in contravention of Mr [Name removed at request of APSC]’s legal obligations to: i) behave honestly and with integrity (s.13(1) of the Public Service Act 1999), ii) (noting Mr [Name Removed at request of APSC]’s involvement in the preparation of the APSC produced document for the IPA and Mr [Name removed at request of APSC]’s affiliation with the IPA), take steps to manage his conflict of interest in making a decision on this matter (s.13(7) of the Public Service Act 1999); iii) to behave in a way that upholds the APS Values (s.13(11) of the Public Service Act 1999) and, iv) by personal example, behave in a manner that promotes the APS Values and APS Code of Conduct (s.35(3)(c) of the Public Service Act 1999).

[7] But the APSC’s internal reviewer need not solely rely on my interpretation – he/she can simply look at how my FOI request was interpreted by other APSC staff.

[8] Upon receipt of my request, the APSC’s then Acting General Counsel, on 15/11/17 responded to it by stating that I am “liable to pay a charge for the processing of [my FOI] request” and that the APSC’s then Acting General Counsel preliminary assessment of that charge was $233.77 constituted of $77.50 for the search, retrieval and production of the relevant documents and $156.27 for decision-making time in respect of those relevant documents.

[9] But, if as [Name removed at request of APSC] [Name removed at request of APSC] asserts, there are no relevant documents, why did the APSC’s then Acting General Counsel decide to impose a processing charge of $233.77 (being representative of the apparent costs of searching, retrieving, producing and deciding upon relevant documents) in respect of my request for documents?

[10] When I wrote to the APSC to request that the $233.77 processing charge not be imposed because access to the documents is in the general public interest, on 12/1/18, the APSC’s Director, Integrity declined my request and affirmed the $233.77 preliminary charges decision including by stating:
• “[h]aving consulted with the relevant line areas and reviewed certain documents falling within the scope of your request [...]”;
• “I consider that disclosure of the documents sought, being emails relating to the [APSC produced document for the IPA] is not in the general public interest or of interest to a substantial section of the public. This is because the documents you are seeking were created three years' ago and in my view, release of the same do not meet the objectives of the FOI Act.”
• “I have also taken into consideration the cost to the Commission in processing your FOI request, noting that the processing charges do not compensate the actual costs associated with the processing of your request. The true processing time for your request is longer than the total time considered for the purposes of determining the preliminary assessment of charges.”
• “I have independently considered the calculation of the preliminary charges assessment, and I am satisfied that the estimated charge is valid, based on discussions with the relevant line area and my own knowledge of the time required to undertake third party consultations, and to draft and settle a decision.”

[11] In the APSC’s Director, Integrity’s own words, she has identified “certain documents falling within the scope of [my] request”. But, if as [Name removed at request of APSC] [Name removed at request of APSC] asserts, there are no relevant documents, why did the APSC’s Director, Integrity decide to affirm a decision to impose a processing charge of $233.77 (being representative of the apparent costs of searching, retrieving, producing and deciding upon relevant documents) in respect of my request for documents? And how can it possibly be that the APSC’s Director, Integrity’s decision to affirm a decision to impose a charge for processing documents (when apparently there are none) complies with the legal obligations imposed on the APSC’s Director, Integrity by way of subsections 13(1) (act with honestly and integrity), 13(2) (act with care and diligence), 13(4) (comply with all applicable laws), and 13(11) (behave in a way that upholds the APS Values and the integrity and good reputation of the APS) of the Public Service Act 1999? If, as [Name removed at request of APSC] [Name removed at request of APSC] asserts, there are no relevant documents, then the APSC’s Director, Integrity’s decision to affirm the charge must surely constitute disclosable conduct for the purposes of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013.

[12] In March 2018, the APSC’s General Counsel, in recognition of the public interest in the documents the subject of my request, entered into a binding agreement on behalf of the APSC, with the OAIC and myself, to waive any charges in relation to my request.

[13] On 1 May 2018, the APSC’s General Counsel wrote to me stating “It has been determined following assessment of the documents [that fall within the scope of my request] that it is necessary for the Commission to conduct formal consultation with affected third parties as required by sections 27 and or 27A of the FOI Act.”

[14] But if, as [Name removed at request of APSC] [Name removed at request of APSC] asserts, there are no relevant documents, why did the APSC’s General Counsel indicate to me that she had identified documents falling within the scope of my request and that she had to consult with third parties identified in those documents? And if, as [Name removed at request of APSC] [Name removed at request of APSC] asserts, there are no relevant documents, did the APSC’s General Counsel really consult with any third parties, and if so, who? If, as [Name removed at request of APSC] [Name removed at request of APSC] asserts, there are no relevant documents, then how can it possibly be that the APSC’s General Counsel’s decision to consult with third parties apparently identified in documents that [Name removed at request of APSC] [Name removed at request of APSC] contends don’t exist, complies with the legal obligations imposed on the APSC’s General Counsel by way of subsections 13(1) (act with honestly and integrity), 13(2) (act with care and diligence), 13(4) (comply with all applicable laws), 13(11) (behave in a way that upholds the APS Values and the integrity and good reputation of the APS) of the Public Service Act 1999, and section 5 of the Legal Profession (Solicitors) Conduct Rules 2015 (regarding dishonest and disreputable conduct)? If, as [Name removed at request of APSC] [Name removed at request of APSC] asserts, there are no relevant documents, then the APSC’s General Counsel’s decision to consult with third parties apparently identified in documents identified as falling within the scope of my request, must surely constitute disclosable conduct for the purposes of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013.

[15] On 17 May 2018, the APSC’s General Counsel wrote to me stating that: “The decision maker is currently assessing the documents relevant to your request and has determined that there are a number of duplicate documents. As such, are you agreeable for duplicates to be removed from the scope of the request? In addition there are a number of draft versions of the documents titled Examples of 'soft' arrangements in Commonwealth Enterprise agreements. To limit the number of pages and number of documents you receive, are you agreeable to being provided with the final version of those documents, or do you require all draft versions of those documents?”

[16] But if, as [Name removed at request of APSC] [Name removed at request of APSC] asserts, there are no relevant documents, why did the APSC’s General Counsel indicate to me that not only had she identified documents “relevant to [my] request”, but that there were draft and duplicate versions of documents that fell within the scope of my request? And if, as [Name removed at request of APSC] [Name removed at request of APSC] asserts, there are no relevant documents, then how can the APSC’s General Counsel’s act of notifying me to indicate that she had identified documents “relevant to [my] request” (and that there were duplicate and draft versions of those documents) be reconciled with the legal obligations imposed on her by way of subsections 13(1) (act with honestly and integrity), 13(2) (act with care and diligence), 13(4) (comply with all applicable laws), 13(11) (behave in a way that upholds the APS Values and the integrity and good reputation of the APS) of the Public Service Act 1999, and section 5 of the Legal Profession (Solicitors) Conduct Rules 2015 (regarding dishonest and disreputable conduct)? If, as [Name removed at request of APSC] [Name removed at request of APSC] asserts, there are no relevant documents, then the APSC’s General Counsel’s statements indicating that she had identified documents “relevant to [my] request” and that there were draft and duplicate versions of documents that fell within the scope of my request, must surely constitute disclosable conduct for the purposes of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013.

For the reasons set out above, I contend that [Name removed at request of APSC] [Name removed at request of APSC]’s decision of 7 June 2018, to refuse access to the documents the subject of my request was improperly, dishonestly and unethically made.

FOI, Australian Public Service Commission

UNCLASSIFIED

Good morning Fliccy,

 

                                             Acknowledgement of
Application for internal review

 

The Australian Public Service Commission (the Commission) acknowledges
receipt on 6 July 2018, of your application under section 54B [Internal
review-application for review] of the Freedom of Information Act 1982
(Cth) (FOI Act), for an internal review of the decision by [Name removed at request of APSC]
[Name removed at request of APSC] dated 7 June 2018 in relation to:

 

               ‘…I request access to all documents held by the APSC that
relate to the APSC produced document for the IPA.

To narrow the scope of my request I am willing for it to relate only to
email documents (ie. emails and any attachments to those emails) and I am
willing for the APSC to disregard all but the last email in email
chains/threads (but only on the basis that the preceding emails in those
email chains will be included in the last email of those email chains). I
am also willing for the APSC to disregard any documents within the scope
of my request that have already been made available here:
https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/3...

 

The statutory timeframe for responding to your internal review under the
FOI Act is 30 days from the date of receipt your application.

Should you have any questions relating to your request, please do not
hesitate to contact our office via email to [1][email address] .

 

 

Kind regards,

 

FOI Officer

Legal Services

 

Australian Public Service Commission

Treasury Building, Parkes Place West, Parkes ACT 2600

GPO Box 3176, Canberra ACT 2601

Email:  [2][email address]

 

show quoted sections

FOI, Australian Public Service Commission

1 Attachment

  • Attachment

    Internal review of Freedom of Information request APSC produced document for the IPA.txt

    15K Download View as HTML

For Official Use Only

FOI Reference:  C18/1260

 

Good afternoon ‘Fliccy’

 

Thank you for your email of 6 July 2018 (attached) seeking an internal
review of the Commission’s decision of 7 June 2018.

External Review

The Commission as with most Commonwealth agencies, holds a schedule of
delegations and authorisations, signed by the Commissioner, delegating
powers to make decisions, as required by section 23 of the Freedom of
Information Act 1982 (FOI Act).

 

In accordance with those delegations and the process for appointing a
decision maker to make a fresh decision on your application for internal
review, an internal review decision would normally be undertaken by the
Deputy Commissioner who is a Senior Executive Service (SES) Band 3
Officer.  Further, an officer at the same level as the original decision
maker could make a decision on your internal review application. However,
there are only a limited number of SES Officers in the Commission who hold
the delegation to make a decision on your review application.

 

The Deputy Commissioner was involved in discussions about your original
FOI request and decision, and has already formed certain views about your
request.  These views are known to the other (subordinate) SES employees
who could consider your application for internal review.  Consequently, an
apprehension of bias may exist with respect to any SES Officer who decides
or considers your application for internal review.  Similarly, although
the Commissioner could generally consider a request for internal review
himself, the subject matter of this request may cause an apprehension of
bias on his part.  It seems likely that that the available decision
makers, including the Commissioner, would need to recuse themselves from
considering your request for internal review  to avoid any apprehension of
bias.

 

As the FOI Coordinator, I have discussed both your original FOI request
and decision, and also your internal review application with the Deputy
Commissioner, and other SES Officers in the Commission.  As such, it has
been identified that as any relevant SES Officers who hold a delegation to
make a high level internal review decision, would have an apprehension of
bias, if they were to make a decision on your internal review.

To avoid apprehended bias - Deemed affirmation of original decision

In accordance with 54D [deemed affirmation of original decision] of the
FOI Act, an agency is required to make a decision on internal review,
within 30 days of the day the application for internal review was received
by the agency. 

 

As there are no suitable decision makers free from any apprehension of
bias, it is unlikely that a decision will be made within 30 days of your
application for review.  Consequently, a deemed affirmation of the
decision on your original request will arise.  The purpose of notifying
you of this is to allow you to expedite this matter by seeking an external
review instead.

The Commission is of the view that in order to avoid any apprehended bias,
the original decision be affirmed.  This means that your review can then
progress to external review through the Office of the Information
Commissioner (OAIC).  This process could occur after 4 August 2018, being
the date in which your internal review decision falls due.

Expedite to external review
However, if you wish to expedite this matter, you may wish to consider
lodging an application for external review of your FOI decision with the
(OAIC) who may conduct an independent review of your decision. 

 

Part VII of the FOI Act provides that an applicant may proceed to the OAIC
for an external review of an Agency’s decision.  Further information on
the process for lodging an Information Commissioner (IC) Review is
available at
[1]https://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-infor...

 

The FOI Act also provides that you may lodge an external review within 60
days of receiving your FOI access refusal decision.  In addition, if you
find that you would like further time to lodge an application for IC
Review, section 54T of the FOI Act also provides that the Information
Commissioner may allow additional time for you to make an IC review if
further time is required.

 

In the interests of allowing you an opportunity for a fair and reasonable
decision, free from any apprehended bias, please advise if you wish to
lodge an application for review with the OAIC? 

 

Alternatively, if we do not hear from you by 4^th August 2018, being the
date in which your decision falls due, we will assume that you will
proceed to the OAIC for review.

 

Clarification of roles of the General Counsel and the FOI Coordinator

I note that you have provided comments in your application for internal
review, regarding communications received by the APSC’s General Counsel.

 

Please note that the role of General Counsel is not the same role as that
of the FOI Coordinator and these roles are undertaken by different staff
within the APSC.  The role of FOI Coordinator and or FOI Officer, does not
require that the occupant hold a law degree.  Currently, and for the
purposes of correspondence in relation to your original FOI decision, the
holder of this position does not hold a law degree, and is not required to
do so.  Where you have noted that the APSC’s General Counsel has issued
either decisions or correspondence relevant to your FOI request or
decision, these decisions or correspondence would have been written or
sent by the FOI Coordinator, unless it is expressly stated to have been
decided, sent by or from, the General Counsel or acting General Counsel.

 

Legislation

If you require further information on the operation of the FOI Act, a copy
of the legislation is available from
[2]https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C...

 

Regards

 

 

FOI Coordinator

Legal Services

 

Australian Public Service Commission

Level 4, B Block, Treasury Building

Parkes Place West, Parkes ACT 2600

E: [3][email address]

 

Important: This e-mail is for the use of the intended recipients only and
may contain information that is confidential, commercially valuable and/or
subject to legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient you are
notified that any review, re-transmission,

disclosure, dissemination or other use of, or taking any action in
reliance upon this information is prohibited. If you have received this
e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all
electronic and hard copies of this transmission together with any
attachments.

 

Important: This email remains the property of the Commonwealth and is
subject to the jurisdiction of section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914. It may
contain confidential or legally privileged information. If you think it
was sent to you by mistake, please delete all copies and advise the
sender.

References

Visible links
1. https://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-infor...
2. https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C...
3. mailto:[email address]

Dear FOI,

Thank you for your email. Given that the APSC has more than two weeks to resolve this matter, including by engaging a person to conduct the internal review, I’ll wait to take any further action until after 4 August.

Thank you also for clarifying the identities of the decision-makers for this request. In the same vein, could you please provide me with the names of the officers responsible for making the following decisions:

i) decision of 15/11/17 to impose a charge of $233.77;
ii) decision of 1/5/18 to consult with third parties per ss.27 and 27A; and
iii) decision of 17/5/18 to consult with me to determine whether I was agreeable to the removal of duplicate and draft versions of documents that fell within the scope of my request.

Thanks.

FOI, Australian Public Service Commission

For Official Use Only

For Official Use Only

Hi Jo,

 

See email below from Fliccy.  As I suspected, Fliccy has asked for the
identity of the officers who made these decisions. 

 

While normally I would be more than happy to provide details of my name, I
am cognisant that the applicant is persistent in seeking access to FOI
decision makers and officers names.  Therefore, in this case, and noting
that the applicant is using a pseudonym through Right to Know, I would
recommend that I only provide the position title of the officer and not
their name.  (See answers in response below in red), or we not respond at
all.

 

Further, Fliccy has agreed to wait until after 4 August 2018 for the
internal review deemed decision. [interesting]

 

 

Kind regards

Karen

 

 

Karen Tulloch    l    FOI Coordinator

Legal Services

 

Australian Public Service Commission

Level 4, B Block, Treasury Building

Parkes Place West, Parkes ACT 2600

P: 02 6202 3707    l    E: [email address]

 

NB: I work from Monday to Thursdays.

 

Important: This e-mail is for the use of the intended recipients only and
may contain information that is confidential, commercially valuable and/or
subject to legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient you are
notified that any review, re-transmission,

disclosure, dissemination or other use of, or taking any action in
reliance upon this information is prohibited. If you have received this
e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all
electronic and hard copies of this transmission together with any
attachments.

 

Dear FOI,

 

Thank you for your email. Given that the APSC has more than two weeks to
resolve this matter, including by engaging a person to conduct the
internal review, I’ll wait to take any further action until after 4
August.

 

Thank you also for clarifying the identities of the decision-makers for
this request. In the same vein, could you please provide me with the names
of the officers responsible for making the following decisions:

 

i)            decision of 15/11/17 to impose a charge of $233.77;  
[Preliminary charge notice decision made by Acting General Counsel]      
 

ii)           decision of 1/5/18 to consult with third parties per ss.27
and 27A; and [Notice to consult decision made by FOI Coordinator]

iii)          decision of 17/5/18 to consult with me to determine whether
I was agreeable to the removal of duplicate and draft versions of
documents that fell within the scope of my request. [FOI     Coordinator]

 

Thanks.

 

show quoted sections

FOI, Australian Public Service Commission

FOI would like to recall the message, "Internal Review application C18/1260 - s54D - Deemed [DLM=For-Official-Use-Only]".
Important: This email remains the property of the Commonwealth and is subject to the jurisdiction of section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914. It may contain confidential or legally privileged information. If you think it was sent to you by mistake, please delete all copies and advise the sender.

FOI, Australian Public Service Commission

For Official Use Only
Dear Fliccy

I refer to your email of 17 July 2018 requesting the identity of the individuals who made the following decisions:

i) decision of 15/11/17 to impose a charge of $233.77;
ii) decision of 1/5/18 to consult with third parties per ss.27 and 27A; and
iii) decision of 17/5/18 to consult with me to determine whether I was agreeable to the removal of duplicate and draft versions of documents that fell within the scope of my request

The first of these decisions was made by the then Acting General Counsel, ([Name removed at request of APSC]).

The second and third decisions were made by the FOI Coordinator (Karen). I am the FOI Coordinator.

The Commission’s policy in respect of FOI practice is generally to not disclose the names of employees below Senior Executive Service (SES) level. Where names are specifically requested under the FOI Act, disclosure is considered in the usual manner under the FOI Act. Namely, consideration is given to whether the names of employees are exempt from disclosure.

In respect of FOI decision makers in particular, section 26 of the FOI Act requires the name and designation of a decision maker to be given where a decision is made relating to a refusal to grant access to a document or deferring provision of access to a document (s 21). However, the FOI Act does not require the disclosure of an employee’s or decision makers details in respect of decisions to impose a charge, to consult with third parties or to consult with FOI applicants.

In this case, we have agreed to provide you with the details of the former Acting General Counsel and you already have my details as the FOI Coordinator.

Please note that my previous response to your message of 17 July 2018 was inadvertently sent in response when it was, in fact, intended to be forwarded to my supervisor. I apologise for any confusion this may have caused.

Regards

FOI Coordinator
Legal Services

Australian Public Service Commission
Level 4, B Block, Treasury Building
Parkes Place West, Parkes ACT 2600
E: [email address]

Important: This e-mail is for the use of the intended recipients only and may contain information that is confidential, commercially valuable and/or subject to legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that any review, re-transmission,
disclosure, dissemination or other use of, or taking any action in reliance upon this information is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all electronic and hard copies of this transmission together with any attachments.

show quoted sections

Dear FOI,

Pursuant to section 54 of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the FOI Act), I seek internal review of [Name removed at request of APSC] [Name removed at request of APSC]’s decision of 21 June 2018 to refuse access to the documents the subject of my request made under the FOI Act on 23 May 2018.

My submissions in support of my application for internal review of Mr [Name removed at request of APSC]’s access refusal decision of 21 June 2018 are the same as those set out in my application for internal review of Mr [Name removed at request of APSC]’s access refusal decision of 7 June 2018 (APSC ref: C17/2088) as provided by email to the APSC on 6 July 2018.

Thank you.

FOI, Australian Public Service Commission

UNCLASSIFIED

FOI Reference:  C18/1032

 

Good afternoon Fliccy,

 

                                             Acknowledgement of
application for internal review

 

The Australian Public Service Commission (the Commission) acknowledges
receipt on 22 July 2018, of your application under section 54B [Internal
review-application for review] of the Freedom of Information Act 1982
(Cth) (FOI Act), for an internal review of the decision by [Name removed at request of APSC]
[Name removed at request of APSC], dated 21 June 2018 in relation to:

 

‘I'd like to make an FOI request for access to all documents held by the
APSC that relate to the APSC produced document for the IPA. Those
documents include, but are not limited to, instant messages (lync,
whatsapp or other), text messages, voice mail messages, emails, meeting
agendas, meeting minutes, meeting notes, marked-up edits and comments
(with authors/editors identified), memos, post it notes and audit details
of active events against relevant documents held in workflow/HPRM /TRIM
{demonstrating which APSC staff members accessed, created and modified
relevant documents and the changes they may have made and when) that in
any way relate to the APSC produced document for the IPA (whether it be
the genesis and preparation of that document, its use, its audience, its
recipients (including all third party recipients), its contents, decisions
made in respect of the document, its distribution or otherwise.

 

The statutory timeframe for responding to your internal review under the
FOI Act is 30 days from the date of receipt of your review application.

Should you have any questions relating to your request, please do not
hesitate to contact our office via email to [1][email address]

 

Regards

 

 

FOI Coordinator

Legal Services

 

Australian Public Service Commission

Level 4, B Block, Treasury Building

Parkes Place West, Parkes ACT 2600

E: [2][email address]

 

Important: This e-mail is for the use of the intended recipients only and
may contain information that is confidential, commercially valuable and/or
subject to legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient you are
notified that any review, re-transmission,

disclosure, dissemination or other use of, or taking any action in
reliance upon this information is prohibited. If you have received this
e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all
electronic and hard copies of this transmission together with any
attachments.

 

show quoted sections

FOI, Australian Public Service Commission

1 Attachment

  • Attachment

    Internal review of Freedom of Information request APSC produced document for the IPA.txt

    4K Download View as HTML

UNCLASSIFIED

FOI Reference:  C18/1317

 

Good morning FOI Applicant ‘Fliccy’

 

Thank you for your email of 22 July 2018 (attached) seeking an internal
review of the Commission’s decision of 21 June 2018.

External Review

The Commission along with most Commonwealth agencies, holds a schedule of
delegations and authorisations, signed by the agency head, (Commissioner),
delegating powers to make FOI decisions, as provided by section 23 of the
Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act).

 

In accordance with those delegations and the process for appointing a
decision maker to make a fresh decision on your application for internal
review, internal review decisions are usually undertaken by the Deputy
Commissioner in the APSC, who is a Senior Executive Service (SES) Band 3
Officer.  Also, an officer at the same level as the original decision
maker (SES Band 1) could also make a decision on your internal review
application.  However, there are a limited number of SES Officers in the
Commission who hold the necessary delegation to make a decision on your
review application.

 

The Deputy Commissioner has been involved in discussions about your
original FOI request and subsequent decision.  The Deputy Commissioner has
also formed certain views about your requests.  These views are known to
and have been discussed with other (subordinate) SES officers in the
Commission, who could consider your application for internal review. 
Consequently, there could be a perceived apprehension of bias which may
exist with respect to any SES Officer making a decision or considering
your application for internal review.  Similarly, although the
Commissioner could generally consider an application for internal review
himself, the subject matter of this request may also result in a perceived
apprehension of bias on his part.  It seems likely that the available SES
decision makers, including the Commissioner, would need to recuse
themselves from considering your application for internal review  to avoid
any perceived apprehension of bias.

 

As the FOI Coordinator, I have discussed both your original FOI requests
and decision, and also your internal review applications with the Deputy
Commissioner, and other SES Officers in the Commission.  As such, it has
been identified that as any relevant SES Officers who hold a delegation to
make a high level internal review decision, would have a perceived
apprehension of bias, if they were to make a decision on your internal
review.

To avoid perception of apprehended bias - Deemed affirmation of original
decision

In accordance with 54D [deemed affirmation of original decision] of the
FOI Act, an agency is required to make a decision on internal review,
within 30 days of the day the application for internal review was received
by the agency. 

 

As there are no suitable decision makers free from a perceived
apprehension of bias, it is unlikely that a decision will be made within
30 days of your application for review.  Consequently, a deemed
affirmation of the decision on your original request will arise.  The
purpose of notifying you of this perceived bias, is to allow you an
opportunity to expedite the matter by seeking an external review instead. 
The Commission is of the view that in order to avoid any perceived bias,
the original decision must be affirmed.  This means that your review may
then progress to external review through the Office of the Information
Commissioner (OAIC).  This process could occur after 20 August 2018, (due
date of internal review decision) or at any time you choose to lodge an
application with the OAIC.  In other words an applicant may lodge both an
internal review and an external review simultaneously if desired. 

 

Expedite to external review
However, if you wish to expedite this matter, you may lodge a simultaneous
application for external review of your FOI decision through the (OAIC)
who may conduct an independent review.

 

Part VII of the FOI Act provides that an applicant may proceed to the OAIC
for an external review of an Agency’s decision.  Further information on
the process for lodging an Information Commissioner (IC) Review is
available at
[1]https://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-infor...

 

The FOI Act also provides that you may lodge an external review within 60
days of receiving your FOI access refusal decision.  In addition, if you
find that you would like further time to lodge an application for IC
Review, section 54T of the FOI Act also provides that the Information
Commissioner may allow additional time for you to make an IC review if
further time is required.

 

In the even that we do not hear from you by 20^th August 2018, being the
date which your decision falls due, we will assume that you will either
proceed to the OAIC for external review or that you do not wish to
exercise your review rights, and the matter will be deemed withdrawn.

 

Clarification of roles of the General Counsel and the FOI Coordinator

I note that you have provided comments in your application for internal
review, regarding communications received by the APSC’s General Counsel.

 

Please note that the role of General Counsel is not the same role as that
of the FOI Coordinator and these roles are undertaken by different staff
within the APSC.  The role of FOI Coordinator and or FOI Officer, does not
require that the occupant hold a law degree.  Currently, and for the
purposes of correspondence in relation to your original FOI decision, the
holder of this position does not hold a law degree, and is not required to
do so.  Where you have noted that the APSC’s General Counsel has issued
either decisions or correspondence relevant to your FOI request or
decision, these decisions or correspondence would have been written or
sent by the FOI Coordinator, unless it is expressly stated to have been
decided, sent by or from, the General Counsel or acting General Counsel.

Legislation

If you require further information on the operation of the FOI Act, a copy
of the legislation is available from
[2]https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C...

 

Regards

 

 

FOI Coordinator

Legal Services

 

Australian Public Service Commission

Level 4, B Block, Treasury Building

Parkes Place West, Parkes ACT 2600

E: [3][email address]

 

Important: This e-mail is for the use of the intended recipients only and
may contain information that is confidential, commercially valuable and/or
subject to legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient you are
notified that any review, re-transmission,

disclosure, dissemination or other use of, or taking any action in
reliance upon this information is prohibited. If you have received this
e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all
electronic and hard copies of this transmission together with any
attachments.

 

Important: This email remains the property of the Commonwealth and is
subject to the jurisdiction of section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914. It may
contain confidential or legally privileged information. If you think it
was sent to you by mistake, please delete all copies and advise the
sender.

References

Visible links
1. https://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-infor...
2. https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C...
3. mailto:[email address]

Dear FOI,

I refer to the APSC’s correspondence to me of 25 July 2018 in relation to my FOI request with APSC reference C18/1317.

That correspondence indicated that the APSC would not conduct an internal review of Mr [Name removed at request of APSC]’s access refusal decision given on 21 June 2018 because “there could be a perceived apprehension of bias which may exist with respect to any SES Officer making a decision or considering your application for internal review. Similarly, although the Commissioner could generally consider an application for internal review himself, the subject matter of this request may also result in a perceived apprehension of bias on his part. It seems likely that the available SES decision makers, including the Commissioner, would need to recuse themselves from considering your application for internal review to avoid any perceived apprehension of bias.”

I note that the conduct to which the documents the subject of my request relates has now been independently determined, by the Merit Protection Commissioner, to constitute illegal conduct.

I assume that the new Public Service Commissioner, Mr Peter Woolcott AO, had no involvement in the illegal conduct related to my request. As such, Mr Woolcott could not be said to have any perceived apprehension of bias in relation the conduct of an internal review of Mr [Name removed at request of APSC]’s decision of 21 June 2018 to refuse access to the documents the subject of my request made under the FOI Act on 23 May 2018.

Accordingly, I request that, under section 54C of the FOI Act, Mr Woolcott conduct an internal review of Mr [Name removed at request of APSC]’s access refusal decision. Noting the due date for such a decision is 20 August 2018, I am prepared to grant a 14 day extension for this review to be conducted.

Thanks.

Dear FOI,

I refer to my request made of the APSC of 10 August 2018, that Mr Peter Woolcott AO, review Mr [Name removed at request of APSC]’s decision of 21 June 2018 to refuse access to the documents the subject of my request made under the FOI Act on 23 May 2018.

Noting that the due date for that internal review decision is 20 August 2018, I would appreciate a response to that request. Could you please advise me as to whether the APSC will be conducting an internal review of Mr [Name removed at request of APSC]’s access refusal decision of 21 June 2018 pursuant to my request for such a review to be conducted as made on 22 July 2018.

Thanks

FOI, Australian Public Service Commission

UNCLASSIFIED
Reference C18/1317
 
Good afternoon ‘Fliccy’
 
Thank you for your emails of 10 August 2018 and 17 August 2018, as
provided below.
 
I note you have requested Mr Peter Woolcott AO, Australian Public Service
Commissioner, conduct an internal review decision in accordance with
section 54 of the FOI Act.
 
I have considered your request and also had regard to the Information
Commissioners Guidelines issued under section 93A of the Freedom of
Information Act 1982 (FOI Act).  It is a requirement in accordance with
sections 15(5A) and 93A that Agencies must have regard to the Information
Commissioners Guidelines.
 
Paragraph 3.6 of the Guidelines provide that:
 
3.6 The public expects agencies and ministers to act fairly, transparently
and consistently in their administrative decision making and to be
accountable for the decisions they make. The quality of decisions under
the FOI Act is particularly important given the integral role freedom of
information requests can have in securing open government.
 
You will recall that the Commission wrote to you on 16 July 2018 in
relation to an earlier yet related FOI internal review decision (Reference
C18/1260).  In that email we advised that there may be a perceived
apprehended bias if the decision on internal review was made by Senior
Executive Service (SES) Officers in the Commission, and that if
dissatisfied, you may wish to consider lodging an external review with the
Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC).
 
Given that these two FOI requests and decisions are similar in nature and
context, we consider that it would be consistent and fair, for you to seek
external review through the OAIC, as part of their functions under Part
VII of the FOI Act.
 
The Commission remains of the view that the OAIC is best placed to review
the decision(s) if you are dissatisfied with the FOI decision(s). More
information about the IC Review process is available at
[1]https://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-infor...
 
Regards
 
 
FOI Coordinator
Legal Services
 
Australian Public Service Commission
Level 4, B Block, Treasury Building
Parkes Place West, Parkes ACT 2600
E: [2][email address]
 
Important: This e-mail is for the use of the intended recipients only and
may contain information that is confidential, commercially valuable and/or
subject to legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient you are
notified that any review, re-transmission,
disclosure, dissemination or other use of, or taking any action in
reliance upon this information is prohibited. If you have received this
e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all
electronic and hard copies of this transmission together with any
attachments.
 

show quoted sections

Dear FOI,

I refer to my FOI application to the APSC here: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/a... where I blew the whistle on corruption within the APSC.

Under the FOI Act, I request copies of any documents within all of John Lloyd’s email account (including drafts and deleted items) that contain my name/personal information: “Fliccy”.

I agree to the APSC redacting the personal information of any person other than that of myself or John Lloyd (with the exception of his mobile number, which can be redacted) from any relevant document. I also agree to exclude duplicate documents.

Not only will the documents the subject of my request allow me to access my own personal information (per s.11B(3)(d) of the FOI Act) they will reveal other matters of general public interest including:

- how the central APS agency responsible for upholding high standards of integrity and conduct in the APS deals with allegations of corruption within its own ranks and how it deals with whistleblowers who call out corruption in the APS;
- whether the APSC dealt with my allegations of corruption in accordance with its own published guidance materials;
- the testing of claims made by the APSC to the Senate Select Committee on a National Integrity Commission as discussed here: https://www.smh.com.au/public-service/pu... including that current arrangements for dealing with corruption in the APS are “working well”; and
- by adding to the current and ongoing debate as to whether there should be a Federal Anti Corruption Commission to deal with allegations of corruption including those levelled at the most senior levels of APS.

Kind regards
Fliccy

FOI, Australian Public Service Commission

FOI Request C19/756

Dear Fliccy

I acknowledge your request dated 12 April 2019 seeking access to documents under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act).

The statutory timeframe for responding to your request under the FOI Act is 30 days from the date of receipt - 12 May 2019. This timeframe may be extended in certain circumstances. For example, an extension to the timeframe may occur if there is a need to conduct formal consultation with affected third parties. Consultation may extend the processing time by an additional 30 days, in accordance with sections 27 and 27A [Consultation – business documents and personal privacy] of the FOI Act. Please let me know if you would like to narrow the scope of your request to exclude personal information of third parties so further consultation may not be required.

If you have any questions relating to your request, please do not hesitate to contact us at [APSC request email].

Sayuri
FOI Officer

Australian Public Service Commission
Level 4, B Block, Treasury Building, Parkes Place West, Parkes ACT 2600 GPO Box 3176, Canberra ACT 2601

show quoted sections

FOI, Australian Public Service Commission

1 Attachment

FOI Request C19/756

Dear Fliccy

I refer to your request dated 12 April 2019 seeking access to documents under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act). Please find attached correspondence in relation to your request.

Sayuri
FOI Authorised Officer

Australian Public Service Commission
Level 4, B Block, Treasury Building, Parkes Place West, Parkes ACT 2600 GPO Box 3176, Canberra ACT 2601

show quoted sections

Dear APSC

A belated thank you for your decision of 17 April 2019 in response to my FOI request of 12 April 2019.

I wist to make another application under the FOI Act. I refer to my FOI request of 12 April 2019. Under the FOI Act I make the same request of the APSC, albeit every reference to “John Lloyd” should be read as a reference to “[Name removed at request of APSC] [Name removed at request of APSC]”, being the relevant decision maker for this matter. I note that all the public interest matters referred to in my 12 April 2019 FOI request remain relevant for this new FOI request.

Yours sincerely,

Fliccy

FOI, Australian Public Service Commission

FOI reference C19/931

Acknowledgement of FOI request

 

Dear Fliccy,

 

1.       The Australian Public Service Commission (the Commission)
acknowledges receipt of your request under the Freedom of Information Act
1982 (the FOI Act), for access to documents as follows:

 

… copies of any documents within all of [Name removed at request of APSC] [Name removed at request of APSC]’s email account
(including drafts and

deleted items) that contain my name/personal information: “Fliccy”.

 

2.       Your request was received on 17 May 2019.  The statutory
timeframe for responding to your request under the FOI Act is 30 days from
the date of receipt – being 17 June 2019 (taking into account the deadline
falling due on a Sunday).  This timeframe may be extended in certain
circumstances, and we will advise you if such circumstances arise.

 

Redaction of junior staff personal information

 

3.       Section 22 of the FOI Act provides that agencies may redact
certain material from documents where the material is deemed irrelevant to
the scope of the request. 

 

4.       The Commission’s policy is to redact the personal information,
including the contact information of public servants who are employed
below the Senior Executive level (SES).  Unless you tell us otherwise, the
Commission will consider that junior agency employees personal information
falls outside the scope of your request, and entries will be redacted.

 

5.       If you have any questions relating to your request please contact
our office by email.

 

Regards,

 

FOI Officer

Legal Services

 

Australian Public Service Commission

Level 4, B Block, Treasury Building, Parkes Place West, Parkes ACT 2600

GPO Box 3176, Canberra ACT 2601

 

Important: This email remains the property of the Commonwealth and is
subject to the jurisdiction of section 122.4 of the Commonwealth Criminal
Code Act 1995. It may contain confidential or legally privileged
information. If you think it was sent to you by mistake, please delete all
copies and advise the sender.

FOI, Australian Public Service Commission

2 Attachments

UNCLASSIFIED

Dear Fliccy,

 

I refer to your FOI request (reference C19/931) for access to documents
containing your personal information, made on 17 May 2019.

 

Please find attached decision and documents released in response.

 

Yours sincerely,

Sayuri

 

FOI Officer

Legal Services

 

Australian Public Service Commission

Level 4, B Block, Treasury Building, Parkes Place West, Parkes ACT 2600

GPO Box 3176, Canberra ACT 2601

 

show quoted sections

FOI, Australian Public Service Commission

2 Attachments

UNCLASSIFIED

Dear Sir / Madam

 

Please find attached correspondence in connection with your FOI requests
C17/2088 and C18/1032.

 

Regards

___________________________________________________
FOI Officer
Australian Public Service Commission

p : 02 6202 3500

e : [1][APSC request email]

w : [2]www.apsc.gov.au

 

 

 

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[APSC request email]
2. http://www.apsc.gov.au/

Dear FOI,

I refer to my FOI applications to the APSC of 2 November 2017 and 23 May 2018 (with APSC references: C17/2088 and C18/1032).

By letter dated 27 June 2019, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner advised me that it was their view that the APSC decision maker for both of those applications, Mr [Name removed at request of APSC] [Name removed at request of APSC] (a senior executive at the APSC), had deliberately “incorrectly interpreted the scope” of my FOI applications, presumably to cover up illegal activity engaged in by the APSC. In doing so, I consider that Mr [Name removed at request of APSC] has contravened his legal obligations under the Public Service Act, and is therefore not a fit and proper person to be employed in the Australian Public Service.

But Mr [Name removed at request of APSC] isn’t the only APSC employee who I consider has acted unlawfully in relation to these matters which have been characterised by the APSC’s culture of politically motivated obfuscation and concealment of corruption.

I note that Ms [Name removed at request of APSC] [Name removed at request of APSC], in her capacity as General Counsel of the APSC, advised (by letter dated 18 January 2018) that my assertion that the APSC had acted illegally and improperly in relation to the matters to which my FOI requests relate, was incorrect. The findings of the Merit Protection Commissioner some 6 months later, proved Ms [Name removed at request of APSC] [Name removed at request of APSC] to be manifestly wrong. I’m of the view that Ms [Name removed at request of APSC], like Mr [Name removed at request of APSC], engaged in obfuscation and deception to conceal plainly corrupt activity engaged in by the APSC. On that basis, I consider that Ms [Name removed at request of APSC] has not only breached her legal obligations under the Public Service Act, but also her legal obligations as a practising solicitor under the Legal Profession (Solicitors) Conduct Rules 2015 including by disregarding her “paramount duty […] to the administration of justice”, by failing to “be honest […] in all dealings in the course of legal practice” and by failing to “avoid any compromise to [her] integrity and professional independence”. Worse still, I now understand that Ms [Name removed at request of APSC] holds a position within the APSC that has oversight of the APSC’s Ethics Advisory Service which, among other functions, provides advice on the he application and interpretation of the APS Values and Code of Conduct and strategies and techniques for ethical decision making in the APS!!!

That someone of Ms [Name removed at request of APSC]’s apparent character has oversight of the APSC’s Ethics Advisory Service is scandalous.

Under the FOI Act, I request copies of any documents within all of Ms [Name removed at request of APSC]’s email account (including drafts and deleted items) that contain my name/personal information: “Fliccy”.

I agree to the APSC redacting the personal information of any person other than that of myself or any person who was a public servant at the relevant time.

Not only will the documents the subject of my request allow me to access my own personal information (per s.11B(3)(d) of the FOI Act) they will reveal other matters of general public interest including:
- how the central APS agency responsible for upholding high standards of integrity and conduct in the APS deals with allegations of corruption within its own ranks and how it deals with whistleblowers who call out corruption in the APS;
- whether the APSC dealt with my allegations of corruption in accordance with its own published guidance materials;
- the testing of claims made by the APSC to the Senate Select Committee on a National Integrity Commission as discussed here: https://www.smh.com.au/public-service/pu... including that current arrangements for dealing with corruption in the APS are “working well”;
- by adding to the current and ongoing debate as to whether there should be a Federal Anti Corruption Commission to deal with allegations of corruption in the APS; and
- by shedding light of whether certain APSC staff are fit and proper persons to be employed by in the APS.
Yours sincerely,

Fliccy

FOI, Australian Public Service Commission

UNCLASSIFIED
Dear Fliccy

I am writing to acknowledge receipt of your request for access to documents under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act). The timeframe for responding to your request is 30 days from the date of receipt of your request.

Some of the documents you have requested include personal information about one or more third parties. This office will consult those individuals about disclosure of their personal information. In such circumstances, the timeframe for responding to your request is extended by 30 days. Consequently, a response on your request is due by 29 August 2019.

Regards
___________________________________________________
FOI Officer
Australian Public Service Commission

p : 02 6202 3500
e : [APSC request email]
w : www.apsc.gov.au

show quoted sections

Dear FOI,

I refer to the “APSC produced document for the IPA” as defined and described in my FOI applications made of the APSC on 2 November 2017 and 23 May 2018. I note that document was prepared by APSC staff for the use and benefit of far right wing, Liberal Party affiliated political lobby group, the Institute of Public Affairs, for the purpose of causing detriment to non senior executive members of the Australian Public Service.

As a consequence of the “APSC produced document for the IPA” being prepared by Commonwealth public servants, the copyright that subsists in the “APSC produced document for the IPA” vests with the Crown/Commonwealth and any exercise of the rights comprised in the copyright that subsists within the “APSC produced document for the IPA” without the licence of the Crown/Commonwealth constitutes an illegality.

The following persons exercised rights comprised in the copyright that subsists in the “APSC produced document for the IPA”:
- Senator James Paterson;
- Mr Aaron Lane;
- The Institute of Public Affairs; and
- RMIT University.

Under the FOI Act, I seek a copy of any licence given by the APSC to any of the above persons, that authorise those persons, on behalf of the Crown, to exercise rights comprised in the copyright that subsists in “APSC produced document for the IPA”.

If the APSC has not given a licence to any of the above listed persons to exercise rights comprised in the copyright that subsists in “APSC produced document for the IPA”, (or equally, if the APSC manufactures spurious reasoning so as to avoid admitting that it did not give any of the above listed persons a licence to exercises rights comprised in the copyright of the document) then those persons have acted illegally.

There is, undoubtedly, a wide public interest in knowing whether parliamentarians, such as Senator James Paterson, are corrupt by virtue of their contravention of the law.

Noting the requirements of the Australian Government’s “Intellectual Property Principles for Commonwealth Entities” and the “Guidelines on licensing public sector information for Australian Government entities” – the document(s) the subject of my request will also clarify whether APSC staff have acted in accordance with Australian Government policy – again, a matter of clear public interest.

Additionally, noting that the IPA is a highly resourced, far right wing lobby group that makes regular submissions to, and requests for information of, Government agencies, and that the IPA regularly appears in the media, it’s in the public interest for persons within Government, and for anyone that consumes media, to know that the senior membership/staff and constituency of the Institute of Public Affairs is essentially a cabal of:

1) corrupt political appointees of the Liberal Party who act illegally in public office – such as Nigel Hadgkiss and John Lloyd
2) Dodgy “academics” who, after being turfed out of one university for engaging in homophobic hate speech, proceed to go to another university to then go about breaching research integrity standards – Aaron Lane (see here: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-ne... and https://www.smh.com.au/national/deakin-u...
3) Child rapists, convicted or otherwise, like George Pell - https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/institute... and https://www.sbs.com.au/news/backers-to-h...
4) Corrupt politicians – TBC.

Yours sincerely,

Fliccy

FOI, Australian Public Service Commission

OFFICIAL
Dear Fliccy

I am writing to acknowledge receipt of your request for access to documents under the Freedom of Information Act 1982.

Regards
___________________________________________________
FOI Officer
Australian Public Service Commission

p : 02 6202 3500
e : [APSC request email]
w : www.apsc.gov.au

show quoted sections

FOI, Australian Public Service Commission

1 Attachment

OFFICIAL
Dear Fliccy

Please find attached correspondence in response to your freedom of information request of 28 July 2019.

Regards
___________________________________________________
FOI Officer
Australian Public Service Commission

p : 02 6202 3500
e : [APSC request email]
w : www.apsc.gov.au

show quoted sections

FOI, Australian Public Service Commission

2 Attachments

OFFICIAL

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

Please find attached correspondence in response to your freedom of
information request made on 30 June 2019.

 

Regards,

 

FOI Officer l Legal Services

Australian Public Service Commission

Level 4, B Block, Treasury Building, Parkes Place West, PARKES ACT 2600
GPO Box 3176 CANBERRA ACT 2601

P: +612 6202 3500 E: [1][APSC request email] W: [2]www.apsc.gov.au

 

 

 

 

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[APSC request email]
2. http://www.apsc.gov.au/

Dear Ms Grady

I refer to your letter to me dated 13 August 2019 and sent on 20 August 2019 with your reference: SHC19-2421. That letter was in response to my FOI request of 28 July 2019 in relation to the “APSC produced document for the IPA” as defined and described in my FOI applications made of the APSC on 2 November 2017 and 23 May 2018 (a definition which, noting your legal obligation to act honestly and with integrity, was affirmed by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner).

I note from your response that:

- despite that the APSC is statutorily charged with upholding high standards of integrity and conduct in the APS, it chose not to comply with the requirements of the Australian Government’s “Intellectual Property Principles for Commonwealth Entities” and the “Guidelines on licensing public sector information for Australian Government entities” in providing the “APSC produced document for the IPA” to the APSC’s grubby mates at the Institute of Public Affairs, presumably because it wasn’t in the APSC’s political interest to do; and
- that, in my view, it’s clear that the copyright comprised in the “APSC produced document for the IPA” that vests with the Commonwealth was exercised by Mr Aaron Lane and Senator James Paterson without the licence of the copyright owner and therefore Mr Aaron Lane and Senator James Paterson have acted illegally and are therefore corrupt.

That being so, in my view, it is now confirmed that the Institute of Public Affairs is a cabal of:

1) corrupt political appointees of the Liberal Party who act illegally in public office – such as Nigel Hadgkiss and John Lloyd
2) crooked “academics” who, after being turfed out of one university for engaging in homophobic hate speech, proceed to go to another university to then go about breaching research integrity standards and who also infringe copyright – Aaron Lane (see above and here: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-ne... and https://www.smh.com.au/national/deakin-u...
3) Child rapists, convicted or otherwise, like George Pell - https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/institute... and https://www.sbs.com.au/news/backers-to-h...
4) Corrupt politicians – such as Senator James Paterson (as above).

Thank you for your work in confirming this.

Dear FOI,

I refer to the “APSC produced document for the IPA” as defined and described in my FOI applications made of the APSC on 2 November 2017 and 23 May 2018 – a definition affirmed by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner.

I understand that the chief authors of the “APSC produced document for the IPA” include APSC employees [Name removed at request of APSC] [Name removed at request of APSC] and [Name Removed at request of APSC] [Name Removed at request of APSC].

I note the illegality established by subsection 13(10) of the Public Service Act 1999, as follows:

An APS employee must not improperly use inside information or the employee’s duties, status, power or authority:
(a) to gain, or seek to gain, a benefit or an advantage for the employee or any other person; or
(b) to cause, or seek to cause, detriment to the employee’s Agency, the Commonwealth or any other person.

I now refer to a decision made under the FOI Act by First Assistant Public Service Commissioner Mr Richard Bartlett, available here: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/4... in respect of a request for access to documents relied upon by APSC staff, including [Name Removed at request of APSC] [Name Removed at request of APSC] and [Name removed at request of APSC] [Name removed at request of APSC], to prepare the “APSC produced document for the IPA”. Mr Bartlett’s decision relevantly states that certain documents relied upon by APSC staff including Mr [Name removed at request of APSC] [Name removed at request of APSC] and [Name Removed at request of APSC] [Name Removed at request of APSC] to create the “APSC produced document for the IPA” could not be made publicly available because they were provided to those APSC staff members “confidentially, for the purpose of seeking advice or approval […]” and that those documents contained “sensitive or confidential information”. Accordingly, Mr Bartlett’s decision establishes that APSC employees, such as [Name removed at request of APSC] [Name removed at request of APSC] and [Name Removed at request of APSC] [Name Removed at request of APSC], used “inside information” to create the “APSC produced document for the IPA”.

Regardless of whether the “APSC produced document for the IPA” was produced:
- for the purposes of corrupt former Public Service Commissioner John Lloyd such that he could prepare an article deriding the employment conditions of non-senior executive public servants - as claimed by APSC’s senior management group: or
- for the benefit and purposes of corrupt John Lloyd’s grubby mates at the Institute of Public Affairs such that they could produce an article deriding the employment conditions of non-senior executive members of the APS (the much more likely scenario given the seemingly preponderant levels of dishonesty and (complete lack of) integrity that characterises the APSC’s senior management group);

it is not in dispute that the “APSC produced document for the IPA” was prepared for the purpose of causing public derision of, and detriment to, non-senior executive members of the APS (in support of the IPA’s policy to dramatically reduce the living standards of non-senior executive members of the APS, while simultaneously dramatically improving the living standards of senior executives in the APS).

Accordingly, in my view, in preparing the “APSC produced document for the IPA”, the elements of the illegality established subsection 13(10) of the Public Service Act 1999 have been made out by the actions of APSC staffers [Name Removed at request of APSC] [Name Removed at request of APSC] and [Name removed at request of APSC] [Name removed at request of APSC]. Therefore, in my view, [Name Removed at request of APSC] [Name Removed at request of APSC] and [Name removed at request of APSC] [Name removed at request of APSC] are corrupt and are not fit and proper persons to be employed in the APS.

But if it is not a breach of the Public Service Act for APSC staffers such as [Name removed at request of APSC] [Name removed at request of APSC] and [Name Removed at request of APSC] [Name Removed at request of APSC] to use inside information that they, by virtue of their APS positions, are privy to, to cause detriment to non-senior executive members of the APS, then it must also not be a breach of the Public Service Act for those members of the APS who, by virtue of their APS positions, are privy to:

- information about Liberal Party members of parliament who have inappropriately claimed parliamentary expenses, to provide that information to journalists, such that they can ‘write an article’ about that misconduct for the purpose of causing detriment to the Liberal Party and its members;
- information about members of the Liberal Party who are directors of incorporated entities who are under investigation for, or have been found to have engaged in, corporate misconduct, to provide that information to journalists, such that they can ‘write an article’ about that misconduct for the purpose of causing detriment to the Liberal Party and its members;
- information about statutory appointees of the Liberal Party who are under investigation for, or have been found to have engaged in, misconduct, to provide that information to journalists, such that they can ‘write an article’ about that misconduct for the purpose of causing detriment to the Liberal Party and its members;
- market sensitive information about publicly listed companies, to trade on that information for their pecuniary benefit (noting that, in any case, the current Liberal/IPA Government would consider such insider trading as not illegal, but rather ‘aspirational’ and ‘having a go to get a go’).

Under the FOI Act, I request copies of any documents within all of Ms [Name Removed at request of APSC] [Name Removed at request of APSC]’s email account (including drafts and deleted items) that contain my name/personal information: “Fliccy”.

I agree to the APSC redacting the personal information of any person other than that of myself or any person who was a public servant at the relevant time.

Not only will the documents the subject of my request allow me to access my own personal information (per s.11B(3)(d) of the FOI Act), they will reveal other matters of general public interest including:
- how the central APS agency responsible for upholding high standards of integrity and conduct in the APS deals with allegations of corruption within its own ranks and how it deals with whistleblowers who call out corruption in the APS;
- whether the APSC dealt with my allegations of corruption in accordance with its own published guidance materials;
- the testing of claims made by the APSC to the Senate Select Committee on a National Integrity Commission including that current arrangements for dealing with corruption in the APS are “working well”;
- by adding to the current and ongoing debate as to whether there should be a Federal Anti Corruption Commission to deal with allegations of corruption in the APS;
- by providing evidence as to whether Ms [Name Removed at request of APSC] has destroyed Commonwealth records in the commission of an offence under the Archives Act (noting that if not destroyed, there will be at least two documents captured by my request)
- by shedding further light on whether certain APSC staff are fit and proper persons to be employed by in the APS; and
- by providing authoritative guidance on how APS members can use inside information to their gain, or to cause detriment to others.

Yours sincerely,

Fliccy

FOI, Australian Public Service Commission

1 Attachment

OFFICIAL
Dear Fliccy

Please find attached correspondence in response to your freedom of information request.

Regards
FOI Officer

Australian Public Service Commission
Level 3, B Block, Treasury Building, Parkes Place West, PARKES ACT 2600
GPO Box 3176 CANBERRA ACT 2601

t: 02 6202 3500 w: www.apsc.gov.au

This email and any attachments may contain confidential or legally privileged information, and neither are waived or lost if the email has been sent in error. If you have received this email in error, please delete it (including any copies) and notify the sender. Please consult with APSC Legal Services before using disclosing any part of this email or attachments to a third party.

show quoted sections

Dear Ms Sayuri Grady

Thank you for your decision, which seems to suggest that not only has Ms [Name Removed at request of APSC] [Name Removed at request of APSC] likely contravened subsection 13(10) of the Public Service Act 1999, Ms [Name Removed at request of APSC] [Name Removed at request of APSC] has also likely committed a criminal offence (under section 24 of the Archives Act 1983) by destroying or otherwise disposing of Commonwealth records.

[Exteraneous Material Removed by Right to Know]

Yours sincerely,

Fliccy

Ben Fairless left an annotation ()

Right to Know has been contacted by the Australian Public Service Commission in relation to this request.

We have hidden the names of 3 public servants who had been linked in the request to alleged breaches of the law.

We feel that it's appropriate for the comments to remain as it provides context to the requests, however have agreed with the APSC to hide the names of the individual officers.

We have also removed content which is not extraneous and which is not relevant to the process of making an FOI request.

Any questions in relation to this should be directed to contact@righttoknow.org.au.