Deed Revoking Regulation 29
Dear Australian Securities and Investments Commission,
The document I seek is a copy of a Deed of Variation for a
superannuation fund where the sponsoring employer is Elder Smith &
Co Limited or Elder Smith Goldsbrough Mort Limited (renamed as
Elders IXL Limted, then Foster's Brewing Group Limited and then
Foster's Group Limited).
The Deed of Variation would be executed in accordance with the
Power of Amendment {Regulation 50} that requires a majority of the
natural person Directors of the Sponsoring Employer to execute any
Deed of Variation.
The Deed of Variation would be dated after 6 May 1958.
The Deed of Variation would purport to revoke Regulation 29 which
provides a pension benefit for qualifying male officers {or purport
to revoke all Regulations} and r
Yours faithfully,
Julie Simpson
Dear Ms Simpson
I refer to your request for a document (Deed of Variation) under the
Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the FOI Act) set out below.
ASIC proposes to release the Deed of Variation to you administratively,
that is, outside of the FOI Act.
From the information you have been able to provide about the Deed of
Variation we are of the view that you are associated with (or may even be)
a Mr Phillip Sweeney who has provided documents like this to many
government agencies and then requested either by himself, his agents or
under a pseudonym under the FOI Act, the very documents which he has
provided to those agencies.
We note that Mr Sweeney has previously been the subject of vexatious
applicant declarations under the FOI Act for, among other things, conduct
like that described above. We refer to the decisions of the
Administrative Appeals Tribunal in [1]Sweeney and Australian Information
Commissioner & Ors [2014] AATA 531 and [2]Sweeney and Australian
Information Commissioner and Australian Prudential Regulation Authority
(Joined Party) [2014] AATA 539.
One of the consequences of Mr Sweeney's conduct is that the Deed of
Variation, or parts thereof, or references to it, are probably easily
located on many different agency websites.
There is a comprehensive list and copies of all deeds relevant to Mr
Sweeney's areas of concern, including the Deed of Variation, published on
a website that we understand is closely associated with Mr Sweeney. Here
is a link [3]http://superfraud.org/?page_id=3187.
Given that the Deed of Variation is readily and publically available we
ask that you withdraw your FOI request, upon which we will provide you
with a pdf copy of the document if you advise that you still genuinely
require it.
Otherwise, If you wish to proceed with the application under the FOI Act
simply for the purposes of having the Deed of Variation appear on this
agency's disclosure log, please state that purpose.
Kind Regards,
Matt Povey
Senior Manager
Administrative Law Team
Chief Legal Office| ASIC | Melbourne
From: Julie Simpson <[FOI #1241 email]>
To: FOI requests at ASIC <[ASIC request email]>,
Date: 23/09/2015 07:23 AM
Subject: Freedom of Information request - Deed Revoking Regulation
29
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Australian Securities and Investments Commission,
The document I seek is a copy of a Deed of Variation for a
superannuation fund where the sponsoring employer is Elder Smith &
Co Limited or Elder Smith Goldsbrough Mort Limited (renamed as
Elders IXL Limted, then Foster's Brewing Group Limited and then
Foster's Group Limited).
The Deed of Variation would be executed in accordance with the
Power of Amendment {Regulation 50} that requires a majority of the
natural person Directors of the Sponsoring Employer to execute any
Deed of Variation.
The Deed of Variation would be dated after 6 May 1958.
The Deed of Variation would purport to revoke Regulation 29 which
provides a pension benefit for qualifying male officers {or purport
to revoke all Regulations} and r
Yours faithfully,
Julie Simpson
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #1241 email]
Is [ASIC request email] the wrong address for Freedom of Information
requests to Australian Securities and Investments Commission? If so,
please contact us using this form:
[4]https://www.righttoknow.org.au/change_re...
This request has been made by an individual using Right to Know. This
message and any reply that you make will be published on the internet.
More information on how Right to Know works can be found at:
[5]https://www.righttoknow.org.au/help/offi...
If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web
manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.
Dear Ms Simpson,
I refer to the below email concerning your FOI request to ASIC dated 23
September 2015, titled "Freedom of Information request - Deed Revoking
Regulation 29" and note that we have not received a response.
I write to advise that if we do not receive a response to the issues
raised by Friday 16 October 2015, your request will be regarded as
withdrawn.
Mirijana Soldatic | FOI Coordinator| Chief Legal Office | Australian
Securities and Investments Commission |' +61 3 9280 3205 | 7 +61 3 9280
3444 | * [1][email address]
From: FOIrequest/Sydney/NSW/ASIC
To: Julie Simpson <[FOI #1241 email]>,
Cc: FOI requests at ASIC <[ASIC request email]>
Date: 25/09/2015 02:37 PM
Subject: Re: Freedom of Information request - Deed Revoking
Regulation 29 [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Sent by: Matthew Povey
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Ms Simpson
I refer to your request for a document (Deed of Variation) under the
Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the FOI Act) set out below.
ASIC proposes to release the Deed of Variation to you administratively,
that is, outside of the FOI Act.
From the information you have been able to provide about the Deed of
Variation we are of the view that you are associated with (or may even be)
a Mr Phillip Sweeney who has provided documents like this to many
government agencies and then requested either by himself, his agents or
under a pseudonym under the FOI Act, the very documents which he has
provided to those agencies.
We note that Mr Sweeney has previously been the subject of vexatious
applicant declarations under the FOI Act for, among other things, conduct
like that described above. We refer to the decisions of the
Administrative Appeals Tribunal in [2]Sweeney and Australian Information
Commissioner & Ors [2014] AATA 531 and [3]Sweeney and Australian
Information Commissioner and Australian Prudential Regulation Authority
(Joined Party) [2014] AATA 539.
One of the consequences of Mr Sweeney's conduct is that the Deed of
Variation, or parts thereof, or references to it, are probably easily
located on many different agency websites.
There is a comprehensive list and copies of all deeds relevant to Mr
Sweeney's areas of concern, including the Deed of Variation, published on
a website that we understand is closely associated with Mr Sweeney. Here
is a link [4]http://superfraud.org/?page_id=3187.
Given that the Deed of Variation is readily and publically available we
ask that you withdraw your FOI request, upon which we will provide you
with a pdf copy of the document if you advise that you still genuinely
require it.
Otherwise, If you wish to proceed with the application under the FOI Act
simply for the purposes of having the Deed of Variation appear on this
agency's disclosure log, please state that purpose.
Kind Regards,
Matt Povey
Senior Manager
Administrative Law Team
Chief Legal Office| ASIC | Melbourne
From: Julie Simpson <[FOI #1241 email]>
To: FOI requests at ASIC <[ASIC request email]>,
Date: 23/09/2015 07:23 AM
Subject: Freedom of Information request - Deed Revoking Regulation
29
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Australian Securities and Investments Commission,
The document I seek is a copy of a Deed of Variation for a
superannuation fund where the sponsoring employer is Elder Smith &
Co Limited or Elder Smith Goldsbrough Mort Limited (renamed as
Elders IXL Limted, then Foster's Brewing Group Limited and then
Foster's Group Limited).
The Deed of Variation would be executed in accordance with the
Power of Amendment {Regulation 50} that requires a majority of the
natural person Directors of the Sponsoring Employer to execute any
Deed of Variation.
The Deed of Variation would be dated after 6 May 1958.
The Deed of Variation would purport to revoke Regulation 29 which
provides a pension benefit for qualifying male officers {or purport
to revoke all Regulations} and r
Yours faithfully,
Julie Simpson
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #1241 email]
Is [ASIC request email] the wrong address for Freedom of Information
requests to Australian Securities and Investments Commission? If so,
please contact us using this form:
[5]https://www.righttoknow.org.au/change_re...
This request has been made by an individual using Right to Know. This
message and any reply that you make will be published on the internet.
More information on how Right to Know works can be found at:
[6]https://www.righttoknow.org.au/help/offi...
If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web
manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.
Dear Australian Securities and Investments Commission,
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.
I am writing to request an internal review of Australian Securities and Investments Commission's handling of my FOI request 'Deed Revoking Regulation 29'.
The FOI request was for a copy of any Deed of Variation executed in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 50 as referenced in the Elder Smith & Co Limited Provident Funds Act 1963 (SA) that purports to revoke Regulation 29 that provides pensions for qualifying male officers.
The decision letter falsely claims that such an instrument is available from the website superfraud.org.
However there is no such instrument publicly available from this website.
Therefore the reason used by ASIC in the decision letter is not a valid reason pursuant to the FOI Act.
Therefore ASIC either needs to release a copy of the document requested or advise that ASIC is not in possession of such a document.
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/d...
Yours faithfully,
Julie Simpson
Dear Ms Simpson,
Your below request for an internal review under the FOI Act concerns your
FOI request dated 23 September 2015.
ASIC wrote to you on 25 September 2015, proposing to release the document
falling within your request outside of the FOI Act. The letter stated
ASIC's reasons for doing so and asked for your response including in
relation to whether you wished to proceed with your FOI request . As no
response was received, ASIC again wrote to you on 13 October 2015 advising
that if a response was not received by 16 October 2015, your request
will be regarded as withdrawn.
As we received no response, your request was regarded as withdrawn as of
16 October 2015. This is not a decision to which internal review rights
apply under Part VI of the FOI Act.
Attached is a further copy of the above correspondence.
Regards,
Mirijana Soldatic
FOI Co-ordinator
Chief Legal Office| ASIC | Melbourne
From: Julie Simpson <[FOI #1241 email]>
To: FOI requests at ASIC <[ASIC request email]>,
Date: 12/12/2015 09:40 AM
Subject: Internal review of Freedom of Information request - Deed
Revoking Regulation 29
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Australian Securities and Investments Commission,
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information
reviews.
I am writing to request an internal review of Australian Securities and
Investments Commission's handling of my FOI request 'Deed Revoking
Regulation 29'.
The FOI request was for a copy of any Deed of Variation executed in
accordance with the provisions of Regulation 50 as referenced in the Elder
Smith & Co Limited Provident Funds Act 1963 (SA) that purports to revoke
Regulation 29 that provides pensions for qualifying male officers.
The decision letter falsely claims that such an instrument is available
from the website superfraud.org.
However there is no such instrument publicly available from this website.
Therefore the reason used by ASIC in the decision letter is not a valid
reason pursuant to the FOI Act.
Therefore ASIC either needs to release a copy of the document requested or
advise that ASIC is not in possession of such a document.
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on
the Internet at this address:
[1]https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/d...
Yours faithfully,
Julie Simpson
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #1241 email]
This request has been made by an individual using Right to Know. This
message and any reply that you make will be published on the internet.
More information on how Right to Know works can be found at:
[2]https://www.righttoknow.org.au/help/offi...
If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web
manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.
Locutus Sum left an annotation ()
In the request for internal review, Mrs Simpson says that the agency must either release a document or say that the document is not in the possession of the agency. That statement is not correct. To rely on section 24A of the Commonwealth Freedom of Information Act the agency only must show that it has made "reasonable" (not exhaustive) searches to find the document, and not found it. It is not a basis for an applicant to conclude that the document does not exist, although there are several applicants who make the incorrect inference. In English the expression is "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
When the decision is reviewed internally, the review officer is required only to check that the search was reasonable; it is not even necessary to make a new search in a different way.