Ex RAN Sailors owed money by the Navy (1973)
Dear Minister for Defence,
Lists of ex RAN sailors have surfaced that state said sailors as
being provably owed money by Her Majesty's Royal Australian Navy.
Multiple communiques between the Chief of the Navy's office, remain
largely ignored, apart from a terse:
"Thank you for your emails. You will receive a response once the
matter has been investigated." received by me on 4 December 2015.
There are 142 ex-sailors on one list alone. There could be more.
I am the first to ask for mine. Three months pay (1973). Now worth
considerably more according to the Reserve Bank and other sources. (up to
$30,000.00 today depending on the number you pick). The point:
Please provide documentation as why were Naval pay records and other relevant data were destroyed in December 2000 without recording the names and amounts of the ex-sailors who the Navy owes money to.
Please provide documentation as to why the money owed to ex-sailors were not put on ASIC's MoneySmart web site.
Please provide documentation as to where the money is now.
Please provide documentation as to if the money was illegally pocketed.
Please provide documentation wher my money is.
Please provide documentation as to whether or not descendants of deceased ex sailors entitled to the money?
Please provide documentation as to why I've had to go as high as the Chief of the Navy for something that should be a simple matter.
Yours faithfully,
Brother Ian R110622 - EMC Able Seaman 1st Class (in 1973)
UNCLASSIFIED
Dear Ian
The office of the Minister for Defence received your request (copy
attached) on 21 December 2015. Your request has been transferred to the
Department of Defence, under section 16 of the FOI Act, on the grounds
that they are most likely to be in possession of documents captured by the
scope of your request.
The point of contact within Defence is Dr Mel Beacroft, who may be
contacted on (02) 6266 3685.
Accordingly, Defence will contact you in relation to your FOI request.
Regards,
Henry Budd
UNCLASSIFIED
Dear Brother Ian
I refer to your correspondence dated 18 December 2015 in which you sought
access, under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act), to the
following:
Please provide documentation as why were Naval pay records and other
relevant data were destroyed in December 2000 without recording the names
and amounts of the ex-sailors who the Navy owes money to.
Please provide documentation as to why the money owed to ex-sailors were
not put on ASIC's MoneySmart web site.
Please provide documentation as to where the money is now.
Please provide documentation as to if the money was illegally pocketed.
Please provide documentation wher my money is.
Please provide documentation as to whether or not descendants of deceased
ex sailors entitled to the money?
Please provide documentation as to why I've had to go as high as the Chief
of the Navy for something that should be a simple matter.
This request has been transferred to the Department of Defence from the
Mister for Defence's Office under s16 of the FOI Act. The statutory
deadline for you to receive a response to your request expires on 17
January 2016.
The Department excludes the personal details of its officers, such as
names, signatures and mobile telephone numbers, contained in documents
that fall within the scope of an FOI request unless you specifically
request such details.
If you do require these personal details, please inform us within five
days of receipt of this email so that the decision maker can consider your
request.
Defence also excludes duplicates of documents, and documents sent to, or
received from you, the applicant.
On 21 December 2015, Assistant Director FOI decided that there are no
charges associated with processing your request as the documents you are
requesting relate to your own personal information. Should you have any
questions relating to your request, please do not hesitate to contact our
office via telephone on (02) 6266 2200 or via email to
[1][Minister for Defence request email].
Yours sincerely
FOI Operations
(02) 6266 2200
[2]http://www.defence.gov.au/foi/
IMPORTANT: This email remains the property of the Department of Defence
and is subject to the jurisdiction of section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914.
If you have received this email in error, you are requested to contact the
sender and delete the email.
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[Minister for Defence request email]
2. http://www.defence.gov.au/foi/
UNCLASSIFIED
Good morning Brother Ian
1. I refer to your email of 18 December 2015 to the Minister for Defence in which you requested access, under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act), to:
Lists of ex RAN sailors have surfaced that state said sailors as being provably owed money by Her Majesty's Royal Australian Navy. Multiple communiques between the Chief of the Navy's office, remain largely ignored, apart from a terse: "Thank you for your emails. You will receive a response once the matter has been investigated." received by me on 4 December 2015.
There are 142 ex-sailors on one list alone. There could be more.
I am the first to ask for mine. Three months pay (1973). Now worth considerably more according to the Reserve Bank and other sources. (up to $30,000.00 today depending on the number you pick). The point:
(Item 1) Please provide documentation as why were Naval pay records and other relevant data were destroyed in December 2000 without recording the names and amounts of the ex-sailors who the Navy owes money to.
(Item 2) Please provide documentation as to why the money owed to ex-sailors were not put on ASIC's MoneySmart web site.
(Item 3) Please provide documentation as to where the money is now.
(Item 4) Please provide documentation as to if the money was illegally pocketed.
(Item 5) Please provide documentation where my money is.
(Item 6) Please provide documentation as to whether or not descendants of deceased ex sailors entitled to the money?
(Item 7) Please provide documentation as to why I've had to go as high as the Chief of the Navy for something that should be a simple matter.
2. Your request was transferred from the Minister for Defence to the Department of Defence under section 16(1)(b) of the FOI Act on the 22 December 2015.
Intention to Refuse Request
3. I am writing to inform you that I believe the work involved in processing your request in its current form would substantially and unreasonably divert the resources of Defence from its other operations. This is called a 'practical refusal reason' (see section 24AA of the FOI Act).
4. Accordingly, I intend to refuse access to the documents you have requested. However, before I make a final decision to do this, you have an opportunity to revise your request. This is called a 'request consultation process', as set out under section 24AB of the FOI Act. You have 14 days to respond to this notice in one of the ways set out below.
Scope of Request
5. Upon receipt of your request, our office undertook inquiries with relevant Groups within Defence in relation to the documents you are seeking. As a result of those inquiries our office has determined that the scope of your request, in its current form, is considered too broad to be processed and would therefore attract a practical refusal under section 24AA of the FOI Act.
6. Item 1 - I understand that the Navy has already provided you with the destruction authority that authorised destruction of relevant Navy pay records in 2000. I can provide you administratively with the National Archives of Australia Disposal Authority for Military Personnel which authorises the destruction or other disposal of Commonwealth records as required by the Archives Act. It is attached to this email. On page 44 you will find the authority to destroy records documenting a member's pay and deductions seven years after the last action has been completed. This authority does not require that any details of the records are retained after this date. Your request for documentation refers to lists of ex-RAN sailors that may be owed money by the Royal Australian Navy. I understand that there are 142 ex-sailors on one list alone. Like your own pay records, it is likely that the pay records of other ex-sailors from this period have been destroyed. However, for Defence to locate and examine personnel files for at least 142 ex-sailors in order to respond to your request would be an unreasonable use of resources.
7. Item 2 - The status of the money that may or may not be owed to ex-sailors on these lists is unclear. As noted above, for Defence to locate and examine personnel files for at least 142 ex-sailors in order to respond to your request would be an unreasonable use of resources.
8. Item 3 - Given the unclear nature of the amounts of money that may or may not be owed and for reasons provided above, in order to find documents relating to this item, Defence would not only have to locate and examine files for at least 142 ex-sailors, but would also have to search through s large number of financial files in Defence to check for traces of this money. This constitutes an unreasonable use of resources.
9. Item 4 - In addition to the reasons provided above, in order to find documents relating to this item, Defence would have to locate and examine all investigations into illegal pocketing of money and cross check this against the at least 142 names contained on the list. This constitutes an unreasonable use of resources.
10. Item 5 - As noted in Item 1, I understand that the Navy has already provided you with advice and evidence that your pay records were destroyed in 2000. There are no documents relating to this item.
11. Item 6 - As noted above, in regards to the money mentioned on this list, in order to ascertain whether there is money that descendants of deceased ex-sailors may be entitled to, Defence would need to locate and examine personnel files for at least 142 ex-sailors. This constitutes an unreasonable use of resources.
12. Item 7 - I understand that the Navy has conducted several thorough investigations into this matter on your behalf. I also understand that you were sent a letter dated 21 December 2015 from the Deputy Chief of Navy outlining the results of these investigations. There are no documents relating to this item.
Practical Refusal Reason
13. Taking the above into consideration, under section 24AA of the FOI Act and for the purposes of section 24 of the FOI Act, Defence considers that a "practical refusal reason" exists in relation to your FOI request. Specifically, Defence considers that the work involved in processing the request in its current form would substantially and unreasonably divert the resources of Defence from its other operations. In particular, a significant amount of resources would have to be diverted from other Defence activities to identify, locate and collate the documents within Defence.
14. This diversion would constitute a significant drain on the resources of the areas involved and would have an unreasonable, substantial and adverse effect on the ability of those areas to conduct their normal business, and, in fact, would make it virtually impossible for the affected areas to carry out their normal functions.
15. With this in mind, an option to revise your scope is to narrow the range of your request to include only a small number of individuals, perhaps just yourself.
16. Please note, that if the documents contain information other than your personal information you are likely to be charged a pro rata fee for the processing of your request.
Consultation
17. Consequently, in accordance with section 24AB of the FOI Act, Defence is required to consult with you advising of the intention to refuse access to your request in its current form. In accordance with paragraph 24AB(2)(c) of the FOI Act, I am the nominated the person with whom you should contact with a view of agreeing to one of the following options:
a. withdraw your request;
b. revise your request; or
c. indicate that you do not wish to revise your request.
18. You should note that, in accordance with section 24AB(9) of the FOI Act, Defence is only required to undertake the above consultation process once, and that you are required to contact me within 14 days of receipt of this notice. Accordingly, if you do not contact me by 20 January 2016, or an additional period of time is not agreed, your request will be withdrawn. Should you require further time to respond, please contact me to discuss.
Further Information
19. The FOI Act can be accessed online at: http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2015C0... . Should you have any queries about this matter please do not hesitate to contact me on the details below.
Regards
Dr Melanie Beacroft
Case Manager, Freedom of Information
Ministerial and Executive Coordination and Communication Division
Department of Defence
CP1-06-005A
PO Box 7910 Canberra ACT 2610
(02) 6266 3685
I work Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday
IMPORTANT: This email remains the property of the Department of Defence and is subject to the jurisdiction of section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914. If you have received this email in error, you are requested to contact the sender and delete the email.
UNCLASSIFIED
I apologise Brother Ian. I forgot to attach the Records Disposal Authority. I have attached it now.
Melanie
Dr Melanie Beacroft
Case Manager, Freedom of Information
Ministerial and Executive Coordination and Communication Division
Department of Defence
CP1-06-005A
PO Box 7910 Canberra ACT 2610
(02) 6266 3685
I work Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday
IMPORTANT: This email remains the property of the Department of Defence and is subject to the jurisdiction of section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914. If you have received this email in error, you are requested to contact the sender and delete the email.
Dear Beacroft, Melanie DR,
Regarding your previous answer of intention to refuse that I'm forced to include here:
I have typed my responses in upper case.
2. Your request was transferred from the Minister for Defence to the Department of Defence under section 16(1)(b) of the FOI Act on the 22 December 2015.
Answer:
THANK YOU
Intention to Refuse Request
3. I am writing to inform you that I believe the work involved in processing your request in its current form would substantially and unreasonably divert the resources of Defence from its other operations. This is called a 'practical refusal reason' (see section 24AA of the FOI Act).
I HAVE REQUESTED THE SAME INFORMATION TWICE IN DIFFERENT WAYS. I DONT KNOW HOW ELSE TO ASK A SERIOUS QUESTION "IN ITS CURRENT FORM"
4. Accordingly, I intend to refuse access to the documents you have requested. However, before I make a final decision to do this, you have an opportunity to revise your request. This is called a 'request consultation process', as set out under section 24AB of the FOI Act. You have 14 days to respond to this notice in one of the ways set out below.
Scope of Request
5. Upon receipt of your request, our office undertook inquiries with relevant Groups within Defence in relation to the documents you are seeking. As a result of those inquiries our office has determined that the scope of your request, in its current form, is considered too broad to be processed and would therefore attract a practical refusal under section 24AA of the FOI Act.
Answer:
I SINCERELY APOLOGISE FOR NOT KNOWING WHAT YOUR OFFICE CONSIDERS "TOO BROAD". IT SEEMS I DONT KNOW HOW TO ASK FOR INFORMATION.
6. Item 1 - I understand that the Navy has already provided you with the destruction authority that authorised destruction of relevant Navy pay records in 2000. I can provide you administratively with the National Archives of Australia Disposal Authority for Military Personnel which authorises the destruction or other disposal of Commonwealth records as required by the Archives Act. It is attached to this email. On page 44 you will find the authority to destroy records documenting a member's pay and deductions seven years after the last action has been completed. This authority does not require that any details of the records are retained after this date. Your request for documentation refers to lists of ex-RAN sailors that may be owed money by the Royal Australian Navy. I understand that there are 142 ex-sailors on one list alone. Like your own pay records, it is likely that the pay records of other ex-sailors from this period have been destroyed. However, for Defence to locate and examine personnel files for at least 142 ex-sailors in order to respond to your request would be an unreasonable use of resources.
Answer:
ALREADY ADDRESSED ELSEWHERE TO YOU. SERVICE RECORDS WERE DESTROYED IN 2003 (BEFORE PERMISSION TO DO SO). I BELIEVE THE POLICE MAY DECIDE WHAT "UNREASONABLE USE OF RESOURCES" CONSTITUTES. I HAVE LIVED AT THE SAME ADDRESS SINCE 1995.
7. Item 2 - The status of the money that may or may not be owed to ex-sailors on these lists is unclear. As noted above, for Defence to locate and examine personnel files for at least 142 ex-sailors in order to respond to your request would be an unreasonable use of resources.
Answer:
UNCLEAR? WE HAVE A POLICE FORCE AND OTHER USABLE RESOURCES.
8. I understand that the Deputy Chief of Navy wrote to you on 21 December 2015 in relation to this matter advising you that there are no documents in relation to your own claim to be owed money.
Answer:
THATS BECAUSE THERE ARE NO SERVICE RECORD DOCUMENTS AT ALL FOR THE TIME. FURTHER, THATS WHAT HE WAS TOLD. FURTHER, MY CORRESPONDENCE WAS ADDRESSED TO THE CHIEF OF THE NAVY.
8. Item 3 - Given the unclear nature of the amounts of money that may or may not be owed and for reasons provided above, in order to find documents relating to this item, Defence would not only have to locate and examine files for at least 142 ex-sailors, but would also have to search through s large number of financial files in Defence to check for traces of this money. This constitutes an unreasonable use of resources.
Answer:
THE AMOUNTS ARE NOT UNCLEAR, THEY WERE "CUT CHUEQUES". DEFENCE MUST HAVE SOME LEGAL OBLIGATION TO DO THIS TASK. IF NOT, THERE ARE ALWAYS EXTERNAL AUDITORS THAT MAY BE BROUGHT IN FOR DEFENCE. THIS WOULD NOT BRING THE RAN FROM PERFORMING ITS NORMAL DUTIES. ONCE AGAIN, THE POLICE SHOULD BE BROUGHT IN TO SEE WHERE THE MONEY WENT. THEY HAVE THEIR OWN AUDITORS TOO.
9. Item 4 - In addition to the reasons provided above, in order to find documents relating to this item, Defence would have to locate and examine all investigations into illegal pocketing of money and cross check this against the at least 142 names contained on the list. This constitutes an unreasonable use of resources.
Answer:
AS PER PREVIOUS.
10. Item 5 - As noted in Item 1, I understand that the Navy has already provided you with advice and evidence that your pay records were destroyed in 2000. There are no documents relating to this item.
Answer:
NOT EVIDENCE, JUST 4 SCRAPS OF PAPER WITH MY NAME ON THEM, SOME DATA IN PENCIL.
11. Item 6 - As noted above, in regards to the money mentioned on this list, in order to ascertain whether there is money that descendants of deceased ex-sailors may be entitled to, Defence would need to locate and examine personnel files for at least 142 ex-sailors. This constitutes an unreasonable use of resources.
Answer:
TO BE ADDRESSED LATER.
12. Item 7 - I understand that the Navy has conducted several thorough investigations into this matter on your behalf. I also understand that you were sent a letter dated 21 December 2015 from the Deputy Chief of Navy outlining the results of these investigations. There are no documents relating to this item.
Practical Refusal Reason
Answer:
NOT THOUROUGH ENOUGH. 4 SCRAPS OF PAPER DOTH NOT A SAILOR MAKE. EXTREMELY POOR RECORD KEEPING SOLELY BY THE RAN.
14. This diversion would constitute a significant drain on the resources of the areas involved and would have an unreasonable, substantial and adverse effect on the ability of those areas to conduct their normal business, and, in fact, would make it virtually impossible for the affected areas to carry out their normal functions.
Answer:
NOTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE.
Yours sincerely,
Brother Ian
UNCLASSIFIED
Dear Brother Ian,
As outlined in my email dated 6 January 2016, Defence is required to consult with you in advising of the intention to refuse your request in its current form. In that email I outlined several options for you at this point: withdraw your request; revise your request; or indicate that you do not wish to revise your request.
We are only required to undertake this consultation process once. This occurred in my previous email where I offered suggestions to revise your scope.
The points you raise below do not indicate your intentions in regards to proceeding with this FOI request.
As a result, unless you provide me with a revised scope, request an extension in order to provide a revised scope or seek a formal s24AA decision [practical refusal reason] by 20 January 2016 we will consider this matter closed.
Kind regards,
Dr Melanie Beacroft
Case Manager, Freedom of Information
Ministerial and Executive Coordination and Communication Division
Department of Defence
CP1-06-005A
PO Box 7910 Canberra ACT 2610
(02) 6266 3685
I work Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday