cost-benefit analysis of the APVMA relocating to Armidale

Thomas made this Freedom of Information request to Department of Agriculture and Water Resources

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 refused by Department of Agriculture and Water Resources.

Dear Department of Agriculture and Water Resources,

This is a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act.

I refer to The Guardian article: 'Barnaby Joyce refuses to release cost-benefit analysis of moving agency to his electorate', published 11/09/16 <>.

This is a request for the cost-benefit analysis report that investigated the implications of the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) relocating from Canberra to the suburb of Armidale, NSW.

This request is for the whole document, and/or emails that have have referred to such a report.

I exclude from this request the contact details of all persons contained in the documents yet to be released, and the names of any departmental staff below the SES level.

Yours faithfully,
Flynn O'Connell

Thomas left an annotation ()

The request couldn't be sent through the Right to Know website, due to the website using an out-dated email address for the Department. The Department doesn't release their email address, and instead forces all applications to go through their web portal. Their email address, which was posted in my previous request was redacted by the Right to Know website.

Nonetheless, further correspondence from the Department regarding this request will be posted up as annotations, following this one.

Sent request to Department of Agriculture and Water Resources again, using a new contact address.

Henare Degan left an annotation ()

Right To Know was recently contacted by the department because they noticed a number of requests on the site that they hadn't received. When the department changed its web and email addresses in late 2015 the old email addresses continued to accept mail but were not configured to forward mail to their new addresses. This means the email was being successfully delivered by Right To Know but not reaching the department.

We've updated the department's details on Right To Know and have resent all affected requests, including this one.


Right To Know administrator

Foi, Department of Agriculture and Water Resources

Dear Mr O'Connell

We note we have acknowledged receipt of the same FOI request you lodged on 16 September 2016 via the department's FOI request form.

Unless you advise otherwise, we will correspond with you to the email address first submitted by you on 16 September.


Stuart Plowman
Government Lawyer |  Office of the General Counsel   |  
Freedom of Information and Privacy Section   |
Phone +61 2 6272 5051   |  

Department of Agriculture and Water Resources
18 Marcus Clarke Street, Canberra ACT 2601 Australia
GPO Box 858 Canberra ACT 2601 Australia

show quoted sections

Thomas left an annotation ()

The following email was sent in reply:

Dear Mr O’Connell

Please find attached the decision on your FOI request.


Melissa Nickols
FOI Officer
Office of the General Counsel | Freedom of Information and Privacy Section
Department of Agriculture and Water Resources
Phone +61 2 6272 3537

[PDF Attachment]

The [abbreviated] attachment stated:

Ref: FOI 2016/17-16

"...I have decided there will be no charge for processing your request Decision on access to documents
I am authorised to make decisions under the FOi Act

One report has been located within scope of your request I have decided that the document is exempt from disclosure under s 34 of the FOI Act

Section 34(1)(a) of the FOi Act provides that a document is exempt if both the following are satisfied:

• 'it has been submitted to the Cabinet for its consideration, or is or was proposed by a Minister to be so submitted
• it was brought into existence for the dominant purpose of submission for consideration by the Cabinet'.

This applies to the document you have requested, and I have therefore decided that the document is exempt...'