Dear Launceston City Council,

It has come to my attention that the Launceston City Council is using it's local authority powers in order to either enforce or give jurisdictional effect to Privacy Act.

This is in reference of the e-mail Launceston City Council has distributed to the public in response of the Strike It Out submissions and feedback - which I will attach as matter of transparency in righttoknow.org.au website this FOIA request originates from.

Does the Launceston City Council have a policy document or such regarding the use of t's powers to enforce Privacy Act on behalf either State or Federal Governments in it's local council area.

If no such policy document exists please either indicate so alternatively so further fact checking can be done.

Yours faithfully,

MissAnonymous

Dear Launceston City Council,

As promised here is the public request in the righttoknow website:
https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/c...

The response the council has been writing to members of public I refer includes the relevant below:

------/ clip /-------

We continue to wait for additional detail from Strike It Out regarding their sleep pods. Specifically we have asked for the following:

Explore the Privacy Act to ensure intake form does not convene anyone's rights, particularly collected data storage - In Strike It Out's application form they request extensive personal information like education level, medical history, medications, financials etc. We have flagged this information is highly sensitive and needs to be reviewed in the context of applicable legislation. The storage of this data also carries obligations that may apply to them.

------/ clip /--------

I've shortened the response here to highlight the relevant bit to this FOIA request on which I'm seeking the details how the Launceston City Council is using it's powers relating to Privacy Acts.

Yours faithfully,

MissAnonymous

Dear Lauceston City Council
Attention Lucas Lim

Thank you for your quick response relating to my information request -

The reason these requests come from different e-mail addresses is that these are able to be automatically separated under different issues from within a public website that is used and consumed by the general public at wide.

https://www.righttoknow.org.au/

Launceston Council has it's page here which these requests are visible and tracked in:
https://www.righttoknow.org.au/body/laun...

The website also provides a mechanism where all information requests and responses are released publicly and openly for everyone to see to provide public transparency at wide.

The website also provides easy interface for the council convenience to save costs to handle these matters efficiently if you would like instead of tracking the e-mails.

The website is ran by OpenAustralia Foundation -

I have no connection or affiliation other than using the website they provide to manage all my information requests for my public research among the other general public using the website.

I understand that it has been just myself for now sending to you via this public information website.

However regarding Issues -

1. Council policy on Enforcement of Privacy Act
This is publicly visible to all public at and available for you to respond at:
https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/c...

Please correct me if wrong -

I believe that Council is not doing the infromation collection thus the council is not bound to protect the information it does not collect e.g. what 3rd parties collect.

The council sets out a policy - whether ad-hoc or standardised - to provide license to homeless accomodation.

My question is what under what policy - or enabling thing otherwise - the council is seeking to use ratepayer funding to enforce in order to bring compliance on private partner entities - e.g. what jurisdiction does the council have to enforce 3rd parties privacy compliance - e.g. Strike it Out

Related to this the council General Manager has been e-mailing the public the below I refer to relating to Strike it Out to be brought to compliance before license can be issued:

------/ clip /-------

We continue to wait for additional detail from Strike It Out regarding their sleep pods. Specifically we have asked for the following:

Explore the Privacy Act to ensure intake form does not convene anyone's rights, particularly collected data storage - In Strike It Out's application form they request extensive personal information like education level, medical history, medications, financials etc. We have flagged this information is highly sensitive and needs to be reviewed in the context of applicable legislation. The storage of this data also carries obligations that may apply to them.

------/ clip /--------

I believe based on the above -

The council may be / or is essentially holding a jusridiction to enforce 3rd parties compliance to privacy act.

Under what documented basis e.g. statutory authority, regulation, policy etc. does the council hold this jurisdiction on 3rd parties? I believe council may or may not have policy regarding this.

If the council does not have any standardised policy then it would be helpful for the public to know it does not have any such policy and these are ad-hoc case-by-casis basis approvals for license.

Especially given the council is funded by the rate payers to fund it's operations that involve the funding the enforcement activities relating to privacy act jurisdiction - or policy otherwise given it's against 3rd party the council has no jurisdiction otherwise on - please do correct me if wrong e.g. providing a document that enables the council to do this kind of enforcement.

2. Other requests - I have several other additional requests please see here from A to C:

A: The documentation that formed the basis of your press release related to Strike it Out
https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s...

The council I believe has the documentation given the council refers to these documents in the release.

B: Homeles Statistics
https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/h...

I am asking for any statistics or reports that the council has already collected relating to homelessness.

C: Policy or Approval criteria for homeless temporary accomodation
https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/p...

Given the public interest relating to Strike it Out and the not published guidelines for approval criteria, I am asking whether the council has any established guidelines or documentation e.g. a policy that forms it's decision making to either help or provide approval for homeless accomodation in general which shows the council is prepared to either support or help otherwise such providers if any.

I believe on this your colleague Linda provided initial response:
https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/p...

I welcome Launceston City Council to provide appropriate documentation publicly related to it's press releases and public communication to it's rate payers given it has been already partially provided otherwise. Thank you!

Yours sincerely,

MissAnonymous

Dear Lauceston City Council
Attn Lucas Lim / Governance and Legal Officer

I request an internal review of the blanket refusal to grant access to information via Right To Know -

The council does not have the legal legal authority to ignore requests from Right To Know

https://www.oaf.org.au/2017/05/11/a-grea...

This is established law - please see:

I highlight that the action of the council is explicitly against statutes of S93A Freedom Of Information Act

And that the Office of Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) has already made relevant authority:

-------/ Clip /--------

Part 3.48 of the Guidelines issued by the Australian Information Commissioner under s 93A of the FOI Act (the FOI Guidelines), to which regard must be had in performing a function or exercising a power under the FOI Act, provide that a request can be posted on a public website and forwarded to a specified electronic address of the agency or the Minister. The FOI Guidelines reference the RTK website in the footnote, as an example of such a website.

-------/ Clip /--------

In order to save costs - I request that you withdraw the statement of refusing to engage via Right To Know website and comply with the statutes.

Please let me know that you continue engaging via Right To Know generated e-mails in order to save costs.

Yours sincerely,

MissAnonymous

Dear Launceston City Council,
Attn Proper Officer pertaining to Right to Information ("RTI")

Also a more formal request if needed:

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Right To Information ("RTI") reviews.

This is pursuant to s. 43 of RTI -

I am writing to request an internal review of Launceston City Council's handling of my Right To Information ("RTI") request 'Council Policy on Using Privacy Act Jurisdiction / Powers'

The council does not have legal authority to institute a blanket ban against request made via Right To Know (RTK) platform.

From federal level as previously quoted this is settled law - statutes and guidelines have changed from 2017 but this can be mirrored to state level under RTI covering the local authority.

As an user and with no affiliation with the platform or it's charity otherwise - I reject the suggestion that dealing with these requests would add undue burden to the council.

I work for the public interest and for the sake of transparency and openess we use the platform that is also otherwise publicly used by many other public agencies without any issues for many years after the caselaw was settled upon ATO determination from authority generated via the OAIC at federal level.

I see no reason under the RTI legislation either where the council is able to "block" or institute a blanket ban otherwise for using the RTK platform.

I invite The City fo Launceston Council to provide response on which section it relies of the RTI or Guidelines issued by the Ombudsman Tasmania - that enables the council to institute a blanket ban and to categorially pre-determine and refuse written requests that are happened by using software called RTK that submits e-mail just as another e-mail software would do.

I do not understand the council position either where supposedly resources would be diverted by using differnet kinds of software to send e-mails to the council which would not be any differnet than using any other type of software.

This may or may not also touch the jurisdiction around anti-competition or under productivity commission - but it is outside the scope of this request pertaining the RTI s. 43 internal review request.

I remind that it was the council who is making press releases about 3rd parties where it did not provide proactively releases of the information that it should have been released together in first place.

If the council would also have released the information publicly proactively in first place, we would not need to make these requests in order to fact check the public discourse that is happening.

So I ask the council in good faith to review the blanket pre-determined refusal that I believe the council does not have legal right to do either via RTI or Ombudsman Tasmania guidelines pertaining to RTI.

A full history of my RTI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/c...

Yours faithfully,

MissAnonymous

Dear Launceston City Council,

For the avoidance of doubt - also in addition re:
Council Policy on Using Privacy Act Jurisdiction / Powers'

Available publicly here for your convenience:
https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/c...

I am also requesting internal review pursuant to Right to Information (RTI)

For the blanket refusal to deal with the valid access request.

I am looking forward for the response for my internal review request - Thank you

Yours faithfully,

MissAnonymous