Group Certificates/PAYG payment summaries of APSC SES staff - FY2013/14, FY2014/15 and FY2015/16

Name withheld made this Freedom of Information request to Australian Public Service Commission

The request was refused by Australian Public Service Commission.

From: Name withheld

Delivered

Dear Australian Public Service Commission,

This request is an application for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the FOI Act).

I am conducting research, across a range of Government agencies, into the Government's enterprise bargaining framework for the Commonwealth Public Service. Specifically, in the interests of equity and transparency, whether the Government's policy to reduce the living standards of rank and file public servants (that is, public servants who are not considered senior executive staff ('SES')) public servants also extends to Commonwealth SES staff.

The total remuneration paid to senior public officers is a matter of public concern and public debate. The public is indisputably entitled to know precisely how much of its money is received in salary and entitlements by senior public servants for performing functions on behalf of the public [see, for example, Asher and Department of State and Regional Development [2002] VCAT 609; Re Stewart and Department of Transport (1993) 1 QAR 227, Ricketson and Royal Women's Hospital (1989) 4 VAR 10 and Re Forbes and Department of the Premier and Cabinet (1993) 6 VAR 53].

I request documents which detail the precise remuneration paid to each of the APSC's SES officers in the following financial years - FY2013/14, FY 2014/15 and FY2015/16. The group certificates/end-of-year PAYG payments summaries issued by the APSC, to each of its SES staff in those years, can be quickly and easily identified and retrieved, and will efficiently and accurately provide the information the subject of my request.

I am willing to agree to the decision maker redacting information relating to the tax file numbers and home addresses of the relevant SES officers that may be contained in the relevant documents. I note, however, that the names position titles of the APSC's SES officers are in the public domain, and that, to the extent that the relevant SES officers' names are included in the relevant documents, that is a direct result of their public duties and responsibilities.

In processing my request, I draw the decision maker's attention to the potential application of paras 11B(3)(c) and 11B(4)(a) through (d) of the FOI Act. I also remind the decision maker of the application of the APS Code of Conduct in his or her processing of my request, including the obligation to behave honesty and with integrity.

Yours faithfully,

[name not required to be provided under the FOI Act]

Link to this

From: FOI
Australian Public Service Commission

Dear Sir/Madam

 

I am writing to acknowledge receipt of your request for access to
documents under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act).

 

The statutory timeframe for responding to your request is 30 days from the
date of receipt of your request.  This timeframe may be extended by a
further 30 days in circumstances where an agency consults individuals
about the disclosure of their personal information.

 

Regards

____________________________________________________

Chris Luton

Australian Public Service Commission

 

p : 02 6202 3571 | f : 02 6250 4437

e : [email address] | w : www.apsc.gov.au

 

 

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: FOI
Australian Public Service Commission

Dear Sir/Madam

I refer to your request for access to documents relating to remuneration paid to certain employees of the Australian Public Service Commission (APSC).

As your request covers documents which contain personal information, the APSC is consulting the relevant individuals under section 27A of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act) before making a decision on the release of those documents. For this reason the period for processing your request has been extended by 30 days in order to allow our agency time to consult with the relevant individuals (section 15(6) of the FOI Act). The processing period for your request is therefore extended to 20 February 2017.

The consultation mechanism under section 27A applies when we believe the individuals may wish to contend that the requested documents are exempt for reasons of personal privacy. We will take into account any comments we receive from the individuals but the final decision about whether to grant you access to the documents you requested rests with the FOI decision-maker.

Regards
____________________________________________________
Chris Luton
Australian Public Service Commission

p : 02 6202 3571 | f : 02 6250 4437
e : [email address] | w : www.apsc.gov.au

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: Name withheld

Delivered

Dear FOI,

I’m writing to reiterate the wide public interest in the documents the subject of my application, to agree to allow certain additional information contained in the documents the subject of my request to be redacted and to seek clarification on your reasoning for determining that section 27A of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 applies in respect of my application.

[1] The precise remuneration paid to public servants for performing public duties is a matter of wide and countervailing public interest. That is established by authority, including that set out in Re Ricketson and Royal Women’s Hospital (1989) 4 VAR 10; Re Forbes and Department of Premier & Cabinet (1993) 6 VAR 53; Re Stewart and Department of Transport (1993) 1 QAR 227; Re Thwaites and Metropolitan Ambulance Service (unreported, 13 June 1997); Re Milthorpe and Mt. Alexander Shire Council (1997) 12 VAR 105; Re Stewart and Department of Transport (1993) 1 QAR 227; Re National Tertiary Education Industry Union (Murdoch Branch) and Murdoch University; Ors [2001] WAICmr 1 and Asher and Department of State and Regional Development [2002] VCAT 609.

In Re Forbes, Deputy President Ball said (at page 60):

"Mr Baxter is a senior public servant performing very significant public functions and being paid wholly from money provided by the public. The public is entitled to know precisely how much of its money is received in salary and entitlements by senior public servants for performing functions on behalf of the public."

In Re Stewart, at pp.257-258, the Information Commissioner observed:

"It has been held […] that there is a general public interest in seeing how the taxpayers' money is spent which is sufficient to justify the disclosure of the gross income payable from the public purse to the holder of a public office. […] see [Re Ricketson and Royal Women's Hospital (1989) 4 VAR 10, and Re Forbes and Department of the Premier and Cabinet (1993) 6 VAR 53]."

In Re National Tertiary Education Industry Union, the Commissioner observed (at [68]):

"I recognise that there is a public interest in the public receiving value for its money spent on public education, especially in the present climate of financial restrictions. I agree with the Tribunal in Re Ricketson and Re Forbes that the public is entitled to know how much of its money is received in salary and entitlements by senior public officers for performing functions on behalf of the public and that such information is the subject of legitimate public interest and discussion."

In Asher, Deputy President McNamara stated:

"The total remuneration paid to senior public officers has been, and continues to be, a matter of public concern and public debate. The authorities referred to above indicate the fact that the taxpayers ultimately meet the remuneration gives them a legitimate interest in this matter, even although it is one that it is clearly a matter relative to the personal affairs to the officers themselves. As Mr Edwards notes, his actions as Secretary must ultimately be regulated by the law which must take precedence over any government policy, or one might say any private assurance that he might give to a particular officer. The existence of authorities such as Forbes and Milthorpe indicates that conformably with the Freedom of Information Act no officer, certainly no senior officer, could legally obtain an absolute guarantee of confidentiality of his or her total remuneration package figure without some special enabling legislation."

[2] There is an additional wide public interest aspect that relates to my application, being that employment relations (including the regulation of pay and conditions) in the public sector, are widely considered to serve as a role model for industrial relations in the private sector (see, for example, Creighton B and Forsyth R [Eds.] Rediscovering Collective Bargaining, 2012 at pp.184-185). That is, the way in which a government treats its staff (public servants) can be considered emblematic of the way in which a government considers employees across the broader workforce should be treated by their employers. The current Commonwealth Government has an employment relations policy in place (known as the ‘Australian Public Service Bargaining Framework’) which necessarily involves reducing the living standards for rank and file (non-SES) public servants. Senior management at the Australian Public Service Commission (the ‘APSC’) has decided, at its discretion, to adopt and enforce, against its rank and file staff, the Government’s employment relations policy. Part of the purpose of my application is to determine whether the Government’s policy to reduce the living standards of rank and file public servants also extends to SES public servants. The documents the subject of my request will shed some light on that issue. It is immutably in the public interest of not only APSC employees and employees across the wider public service, but also Australian taxpayers and working Australians more generally, to know whether it is the current Government’s view that rank and file employees who are not categorised as senior executives (or equivalent) are generally overpaid, and should therefore have their living standards reduced by their employers, while senior executives (or their equivalents) are generally underpaid and should have their living standards increased.

[3] You will have noted from my application that “I am willing to agree to the decision maker redacting information relating to the tax file numbers and home addresses of the relevant SES officers that may be contained in the relevant documents.” In addition, I am willing to further agree to the decision maker redacting information that may be contained in the documents the subject of my request relating to the amount of tax withheld. Assuming that tax has been withheld in accordance with relevant laws, I do not consider the release of such information to be in the public interest (at least for the purposes of my particular request).

[4] I note that you have decided that section 27A applies in respect of my request. Section 27A applies in circumstances where, in an agency’s view, the person (or their legal representative) to whom personal information contained in a requested document relates, might reasonably wish to make a contention that the relevant document is conditionally exempt document (under s.47F) and access to the document would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest.

[7] Section 47F of the FOI Act provides that a document is conditionally exempt if its disclosure would involve the unreasonable disclosure of personal information about a person. Pursuant to subsection 47F(2), in determining whether the disclosure is unreasonable, the APSC must have regard to the extent to which the information is well known (s.47F(2)(a)); whether the person to whom the information relates is known to be associated with the matters dealt with in the document (s.47F(2)(b)); and the availability of the information from publicly accessible sources (s.47F(2)(c)).

[8] Applying paragraphs 47F(2)(a) and (c) together, I note that the information to which I seek access is well known, not least because the APSC (among others) has chosen to publish, to the world at large (through its website), information pertaining to the names of its SES officers and their indicative salaries (presumably in recognition of the established wide and countervailing public interest in such information and because it considered that it was not be unreasonable to do so).

[9] Applying paragraph 47F(2)(b) of the FOI Act, because information pertaining to the identities of the APSC’s SES officers and their indicative salaries is publicly known (including because the APSC has chosen to publish that information), the information contained in the payment summaries/group certificates is (publicly) known to be associated with the SES officers to whom those summaries/group certificates relate. The information relating to SES public servants included in their annual payment summaries/group certificates is included because that information relates to those public servants’ usual public duties and responsibilities. However, please let me know as soon as possible if taxpayer funded payments have been made to APSC SES officers in respect of things other than their public duties and responsibilities.

[10] Subsection 11A(5) of the FOI Act provides that access must nevertheless be provided to a document that is conditionally exempt 'unless (in the circumstances) access to the document at that time would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest'. Subsection 11B(3) lists public interest factors that favour access being granted to a conditionally exempt document (which, in the case of my application, relevantly include: promotion of the objects of the FOI Act, informing debate on a matter of public importance (being the Government’s treatment of public servants and the Government’s attitude towards the pay and working conditions of rank and file employees Australia-wide), and the promotion of effective oversight of public expenditure). Subsection 11B(4) lists irrelevant factors that must not be taken into account (I consider all of those factors to be relevant to my application and therefore they should not be taken into account by the APSC).

[11] The only difference between the information in the documents the subject of my request (noting that I have agreed to the redaction of certain information from those documents) and the information the APSC has published is that the information the APSC has chosen to publish allows the indicative range of a particular SES officer’s remuneration to be established while the documents the subject of my request allows that SES officer’s remuneration to be precisely established. That being the case, could you please explain your decision that section 27A of the FOI Act (in particular, paragraph 27(1)(b)) applies to the information the subject of my request, despite:

- your knowledge of the wide and countervailing public interest in the information contained in the documents the subject of my request (including that established by the authorities referred to in my application and above),
- that the information is broadly known, not least through its public availability; and
- that the SES officers to which the information relates are known to be associated with the matters dealt with in the information.

Yours sincerely

[name not required to be provided under the FOI Act]

Link to this

From: FOI
Australian Public Service Commission

Dear Sir/Madam

Thankyou for your email.

As you were advised below on 9 January 2017, the APSC is consulting with individuals under section 27A of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act) before making a decision in relation to the release of documents which you have requested.

Actions taken by an Agency in accordance with section 27A of the FOI Act do not constitute reviewable decisions under the FOI Act. You will be notified of the decision in respect of your FOI request by 20 February 2017.

Regards

Jo Motbey
Australian Public Service Commission
Level 6, Aviation House, 16 Furzer Street, PHILLIP ACT 2606
P: 02 6202 3569    l   M: 0429 820 681 l  E: [email address]

Important: This e-mail is for the use of the intended recipients only and may contain information that is confidential, commercially valuable and/or subject to legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that any review, re-transmission, disclosure, dissemination or other use of, or taking any action in reliance upon this information is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all electronic and hard copies of this transmission together with any attachments.

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: Name withheld

Delivered

Dear Ms Motbey,

While I may not be entitled to a statement of reasons at law, I maintain my request that the APSC explain its decision that section 27A of the FOI Act (in particular, paragraph 27(1)(b)) applies to the information the subject of my request.

If the APSC in unwilling or otherwise unable to provide justification for its decision that section 27A of the FOI Act applies to my request, could you please confirm as such by return email. In the other case, thank you for providing reasoning in response to my request.

Yours sincerely,

[name not required to be provided under the FOI Act]

Link to this

From: FOI
Australian Public Service Commission

Dear Sir/Madam

It is the APSC's practice, and in accordance with the FOI Guidelines, to consult with third parties where documents relevant to an FOI request may affect another person's personal privacy.

Regards

Jo Motbey
Australian Public Service Commission
Level 6, Aviation House, 16 Furzer Street, PHILLIP ACT 2606
P: 02 6202 3569    l   M: 0429 820 681 l  E: [email address]

Important: This e-mail is for the use of the intended recipients only and may contain information that is confidential, commercially valuable and/or subject to legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that any review, re-transmission, disclosure, dissemination or other use of, or taking any action in reliance upon this information is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all electronic and hard copies of this transmission together with any attachments.

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: Name withheld

Delivered

Dear Ms Motbey

I'm not sure you've understood my request and so I'll explain it again.

Section 27A of the FOI Act will apply in circumstances where the APSC is satisifed that the SES officers to whom personal information contained in the documents I've requested relates, might reasonably wish to make a contention that the relevant documents sought are conditionally exempt documents (under s.47F) AND access to the document swould, on balance, be contrary to the public interest.

Given:

- the APSC's knowledge of the wide and countervailing public interest in the information contained in the documents the subject of my request (including that established by the authorities referred to in my application and above),
- that the information is broadly known, not least through its public availability; and
- that the SES officers to which the information relates are known to be associated with the matters dealt with in the information;

on what basis have you formed the view that the SES officers concerned might reasonably wish to make a contention that: a) the documents sought are conditionally exempt under s.47F; AND b) access to the documents sought would be contrary to the public interest?

For example, have you formed the view that there is a strong likelihood the SES officers concerned might reasonably wish to content that release of the documents sought would put the physical safety of those SES officers at imminent risk and the likelihood of that risk outweighs the established wide and countervailing interest in the information contained in the documents sought?

Yours sincerely,

[name not required to be provided under the FOI Act]

Link to this

From: FOI
Australian Public Service Commission

Dear Sir/Madam

No decision on your FOI request has yet been made. You will be notified in due course when a decision is made.

Regards

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: Name withheld

Delivered

Dear FOI,

Your statement that "[n]o decision on your FOI request has yet been made" is incorrect. The APSC has decided that section 27A of the FOI Act applies to my request and I am asking the APSC, for the fourth time, to explain its decision that section 27A of the FOI Act (in particular, paragraph 27(1)(b)) applies to the information the subject of my request, despite:

- the APSC's knowledge of the wide and countervailing public interest in the information contained in the documents the subject of my request (including that established by the authorities referred to in my application and above),
- that the information is broadly known, not least through its public availability; and
- that the SES officers to which the information relates are known to be associated with the matters dealt with in the information.

I acknowledge that the APSC is under no legal obligation, at this time, to explain the basis for its decision, but Ihe provision of an explanation would be in the interests of the transparent and proper administration of the FOI Act.

As previously mentioned, if the APSC in unwilling or otherwise unable to provide justification for its decision that section 27A of the FOI Act applies to my request, could you please confirm as such by return email. In the other case, thank you for providing reasoning in response to my request.

Yours sincerely,

[name not required to be provided under the FOI Act]

Link to this

From: FOI
Australian Public Service Commission


Attachment FOI letter.pdf
1.7M Download View as HTML


Dear Sir/Madam

Please find attached correspondence in response to your request of 22 December 2016.

Regards
____________________________________________________
Chris Luton
Australian Public Service Commission

p : 02 6202 3571 | f : 02 6250 4437
e : [email address] | w : www.apsc.gov.au

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: Name withheld

Delivered

Dear FOI,

Thanks for your work on this matter. I'll consider my options.

In the meantime, I've a couple of requests, as follows.

i) On 9 January 2017, the APSC decided that section 27A of the FOI Act applied to my request. Could you please confirm the name and job title of the officer who made that decision (it appears that the relevant staff member's name is Chris Luton whom I understand is not categorised as an SES officer - but please correct me if I am wrong).

ii) Could you please let me know whether the office holder of the position 'Director, Legal Services' at the APSC is categorised as an SES officer?

II would have thought that the above requests can be dealt with administratively, but if you think otherwise, please let me know as soon as possible.

Regards

[Name not required to provided under the FOI Act]

Link to this

James Baldwin left an annotation ()

Hey there Name Withheld,

You have names of staff. Try looking them up on http://www.directory.gov.au/ as that is where SES staff are listed.

Link to this

From: FOI
Australian Public Service Commission

Dear Sir/Madam

Thank you for your message of 20 February 2017.

With respect to your first question, no written record of a decision to consult affected third parties was made. I wrote to the affected third-parties on behalf of and after discussions with the (then acting) Group Manager, Corporate Group.

With respect to your second question, the Director, Legal Services is not an SES-level position.

Regards
____________________________________________________
Chris Luton
Australian Public Service Commission

p : 02 6202 3571 | f : 02 6250 4437
e : [email address] | w : www.apsc.gov.au

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: Name withheld

Delivered

Thanks for this Chris.

Link to this

From: Name withheld

Delivered

To Whom it May Concern
 
I refer to Ms Clare Page’s (the “decision-maker’s”) letter to me of 20 February 2017 (the “decision letter”) and I note the following.

[1] In the first substantive paragraph of the decision letter, the decision-maker correctly identifies that her decision gives rise to a real or apparent conflict of interest. That conflict is borne out of the decision-maker’s personal (and self-declared) interest in not disclosing the precise remuneration she receives from public funding for performing public duties – a personal interest which would reasonably be considered to influence any decision she might make as to whether her remuneration should be properly disclosed, pursuant to the FOI Act, in respect of the wide and prevailing public interest in such information.

[2] Upon identifying and disclosing that conflict of interest, it was incumbent on the decision-maker to manage that conflict. The appropriate method by which that conflict of interest should have been managed is by having another authorised decision-maker under the FOI Act at the APSC, who is not tainted by a conflict of interest (ie. a non-SES officer), make the relevant decision.

[3] In considering that option the decision-maker stated the following:

“In the APSC, decisions on FOI requests are made by the relevant Group Manager (SES Band 1). I am the Group Manager of the Corporate Group […] In the circumstances I do not consider it feasible to disqualify myself from considering your request because any other Group Manager in the APSC would be in the same position.”

[4] I refer to my application made under the FOI Act of the APSC on 22 December 2016 which relevantly stated:

“I […] remind the decision maker of the application of the APS Code of Conduct in his or her processing of my request, including the obligation to behave honestly and with integrity.”

[5] I note the instrument which appoints authorised decision makers under the FOI Act at the APSC: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/2...

[6] Relevantly, the instrument provides that the person holding the position of “Director, Legal Services” at the APSC (that position being a rank and file/non-SES position) is empowered to make decisions under the FOI Act, which would include the making of a decision in response to my FOI request.

[7] A search of the righttoknow.org.au website indicates that the APSC’s Director, Legal Services has made a number of decisions under the FOI Act in her capacity as an authorised decision-maker. For example: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/2...

[8] I am also aware that the APSC’s Director, Legal Services has made decisions under the FOI Act in respect of FOI applications made of the APSC that were not made by way of the righttoknow.org.au website.

[9] The decision-maker was aware, at all relevant times, that the APSC’s Director, Legal Services was able to make a decision in respect of my request.  Indeed, the APSC’s Director, Legal Services played an active role in processing my request and preparing the decision.

[10] It would seem, therefore, that in stating that “FOI requests are made by the relevant Group Manager (SES Band 1)” and that “I do not consider it feasible to disqualify myself from considering your request” that the decision-maker has, prima facie, deliberately and seriously breached the APS Code of Conduct (which relevantly requires APS employees to behave ‘honestly and with integrity’ and to ‘take reasonable steps to avoid any conflict of interest (real or apparent)’).

[11] Before I make an APS Code of Conduct complaint in relation to this matter, I invite the decision-maker to make submissions in response to the matters set out above, by close of business Monday, 27 March 2017.

[12] The APSC advises that APS Code of Conduct complaints should be made directly to the relevant agency head. To that end, and regardless of whether the decision-maker wishes to make submissions in response to the matters set out above, please provide me with the direct email address of the Australian Public Service Commissioner as soon as possible.

Link to this

From: FOI
Australian Public Service Commission

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

I refer to your email below.

 

As stated in the FOI decision in relation to this matter, the decision
maker turned her mind to the issue of a potential perceived conflict of
interest and was satisfied that she could make an impartial decision. In
this regard, the APS Code of Conduct requires employees to take reasonable
steps to avoid any conflict of interest, real or apparent, in connection
with their employment.  Taking reasonable steps involves assessing and
managing perceived conflicts of interest; it does not automatically
require the delegate to exclude themselves from being the decision maker
in that case.

 

Whilst you note that the Director, Legal Services, also has delegation to
make decisions under the FOI Act, it is a matter for the APSC as to who is
the appropriate decision maker in each matter. In this case, a decision
was made that it was more appropriate for the Group Manager, not the
Director, Legal Services, to be the delegate as the information to be
disclosed included personal information about SES employees who are all at
a higher level.  Tasking an employee to make decisions about matters
affecting their managers could give rise to an apparent conflict of
interest.

 

The Australian Public Service Commissioner's email address is
[1][email address].

 

Regards

 

Jo Motbey

Australian Public Service Commission

Level 6, Aviation House, 16 Furzer Street, PHILLIP ACT 2606

 

 

show quoted sections

Link to this

Locutus Sum left an annotation ()

This is an interesting request page. After the agency notifies the applicant that the agency proposes to consult with affected individuals, the applicant writes again (https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/g... ) asking about reasons for the consultation. The applicant is entitled to ask the questions but I do not understand why the Australian Public Service Commission would answer. In the actuality, the agency does not respond to the applicant's questions (https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/g... ) and reminds the applicant that, at the time, no decision had by then been made.

The Act is designed to allow people who might be affected by disclosures under the Act to make arguments about why the disclosures should not occur. The applicant might be eager for a quick decision but the worst thing that can happen (even if the agency has incorrectly estimated the likelihood that an affected person "might reasonably contend ...") is that there will be a short delay to the day the decision is made. The benefit is that when a decision is made, and it might have been a decision to release information to the applicant, then the decision might be less probably to be challenged by the other people who might be affected.

In the manner that the decision process has revealed itself, the applicant receives the decision notice (https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/g... ) on 20 February 2017. There are then two more letters from the applicant (https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/g... and https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/g... ) but I am surprising to see that neither of these letters is a simple request for an internal review. In fact the applicant had 30 days to ask for an internal review but she does not do this. Instead she writes a letter which is like a complaint and then says that before she makes an actual complaint to the Australian Public Service Commissioner, she "invite[s] the decision-maker to make submissions [to the applicant!] in response to the matters set out above, by close of business Monday, 27 March 2017." When I read this I am not sure if the applicant makes a joke but I think she is not. I read it like a joke (using legal and civil-service language) because it is difficult for me to imagine any person responding to this "invitation". Just ask yourself, "why would I respond if it were me"?

In any case, the applicant has at least four roads she can travel. First is to complain about the decision maker to the Australian Public Service Commissioner. In my opinion, the complaint does not have legs and will be easily dismissed. Second is to complain to the same Commissioner about the decision process; also in this respect I think that a complaint will be dismissed. Third is to complain about the FOI decision process to the FOI Commissioner, and this complaint also I think is ungrounded. Then there is the most likely road to success (although I do not think the success chance is more than 50 per cent) and this is to ask the FOI Commissioner to review the decision. However, there is a possible problem with this road; the applicant is running out of time to make a request. It must be made by Friday 21 April 2017 or the applicant will first have to ask the FOI Commissioner to accept a late application.

Now that my annotation has been sitting on my computer, unposted for an hour, I realise that there is also another possibility. The applicant could ask the Australian Public Service Commission whether the agency is willing to accept a late (by about four weeks) application for internal review. The advantage to do this is (i) to show good faith, and (ii) if the agency is willing to give an internal review then the clock would restart for a possible application for IC review, and give the applicant 60 days from the day that the internal review is delivered.

Also then there is the Ombudsman about whom I had forgotten, but all these roads that are not direct FOI roads, will, in my opinion, fail because a reasonable person will hold that the APSC Code of Conduct (Public Service Act, 1999 (Cth), section 13) has not been violated.

Link to this

Things to do with this request

Anyone:
Australian Public Service Commission only: