Australia's Worst White-Collar Crime
Phillip Sweeney made this Freedom of Information request to Australian Prudential Regulation Authority
This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.
Dear Australian Prudential Regulation Authority,
I am writing to lodge a request for documents pursuant the Freedom of Information Act 1982.
The document the Applicant seeks is a copy of a Booklet of the Regulations of The Provident Fund where the employer-sponsor is Elder Smith Goldsbrough Mort Limited. The Booklet is a consolidation of the Regulations as of 30 June 1974 and confirms the basic benefit is a pension for life (if 15 years of service have been completed), based on the formula [Years of Service]/[Age when Leaving Service] times [Final Average Salary].
This Booklet also confirms that from 1974 the members were provided with the power to remove and appoint two natural person trustees and the pensioners had the power to remove and appoint one natural person trustee.
The Regulations also confirm that the trustees had to be resident in South Australia in order to comply with the provisions of the Trustee Act 1936 (SA).
A copy of this Booklet was attached to a letter dated 11 March 2014 sent to the previous Chairman.
Can you please confirm receipt of this FOI Request
For Official Use Only
Dear Mr Sweeney
I refer to your request for information under the Freedom of Information
Act 1982 dated 5 January 2015, seeking copies of:
i. A copy of the Booklet of the Regulations of The Provident Fund
where the employer-sponsor is Elder Smith Goldsbrough Mort Limited.
The document which is the subject of this FOI request (the Document) is a
document you sent electronically to APRA in March 2014.
In evidence given at the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in the following
· Sweeney and Australian Information Commissioner and Australian
Prudential Regulation Authority (Joined Party)  AATA 539 (6 August
· Sweeney and Australian Information Commissioner & Ors 
AATA 531 (4 August 2014),
you provided various reasons for requesting a document under the FOI Act
that is in the possession of an Agency because you have provided the
document to the Agency. These reasons included:
a) to obtain evidence that the document had been received and properly
filed by the Agency and could be retrieved on request; and
b) to avoid sending a document by registered post to an Agency which is
more expensive than an application under the FOI Act since Parliament
repealed the requirement for a $30.00 application fee.
As stated above, I can confirm that APRA is in possession of the document
that is the subject of this request.
As you are aware, APRA is required to formally respond and provide a
notice of decision in relation to all requests for information received
under the FOI Act. I ask you to please consider the staff hours that are
required to process FOI requests, in addition to the above information.
As you are already in possession of the document, would you please advise
if APRA’s confirmation satisfies your request?
Dear Freedom of Information,
Your FOI Response has confirmed that APRA has possession of the document sought. If APRA posts a copy of this document of APRA's FOI Disclosure Log my FOI Request will have been satisfied. There are other members of this fund who wil be interested to have access to this document. Posting this Document on the FOI disclosure log will mean that APRA will not have to deal with multiple FOI requests for this document.
Dear Freedom of Information,
Has this document been posted on the FOI Disclosure log as required by the FOI Act?