Refusal to Provide a Statement of Reasons

Adam Presnell made this Freedom of Information request to Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority

The request was refused by Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority.

From: Adam Presnell

Delivered

Dear Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority,

In October 2012, the CEO of the APVMA was asked to provide a 'Statement of Reasons' in relation to her decisions in relation to the regulation and use of 'GLORICIDE' by the Sunshine Coast Regional Council. The CEO refused to provide a Statement of Reasons as requested under the Administrative Decision s Act 1977.

I am requesting all correspondence by the APVMA and to the APVMA in relation to this request for a Statement of Reasons including: emails, letters, meeting minutes, phone call records,etc.

Yours faithfully,

Adam Presnell

Link to this

From: FOI
Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority

UNCLASSIFIED

Dear Adam

I acknowledge receipt of your application made under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act) received by the APVMA on 10 March 2017.

The APVMA will contact you using the email address you have provided. Please advise if you would prefer us to use an alternative means of contact.

When will you be notified of a decision?

Pursuant to section 15(5)(b) of the FOI Act, the APVMA must notify you of a decision in relation to your request within 30 calendar days after the date on which the request was received.
If your request contains information about a third party, the APVMA may decide to consult with that third party in relation to the release of that information under the FOI Act. Where consultation with a third party is required, the 30 day period referred above will be extended by 30 days to 60 days pursuant to section 15(6) of the FOI Act.

Charges:

The APVMA may decide to impose a charge for the processing of this request. If the APVMA decides that it is appropriate to impose charges for this request, you will be notified and the relevant time period for processing this request will be suspended until either a deposit or full payment of the charges is received by the APVMA.

If you have any questions please contact the FOI team at [APVMA request email] or on (02) 6210 4794.

Kind regards

Paul Grutt
Senior Legal Officer | Legal Program
Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA)
PO Box 6182 Kingston ACT 2604
www.apvma.gov.au | [email address]
P: +61 2 6210 4794 | F: +61 2 6210 4787

This email may contain confidential or legally privileged information. Contents of this email should not be communicated or distributed outside the APVMA without the express written permission of the General Counsel.

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: FOI
Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority


Attachment Lex 5043 FOI Adam Presnell Correspondence in relation to a request for a statement of reasons about Gloricide Notice of preliminary assessment of charges Signed.pdf
254K Download View as HTML


UNCLASSIFIED

Dear Adam

Please find enclosed the APVMA's preliminary estimate of charges in relation to the below request.

Kind regards

Paul Grutt
Senior Legal Officer | Legal Program
Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA)
PO Box 6182 Kingston ACT 2604
www.apvma.gov.au | [email address]
P: +61 2 6210 4794 | F: +61 2 6210 4787

This email may contain confidential or legally privileged information. Contents of this email should not be communicated or distributed outside the APVMA without the express written permission of the General Counsel.

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: Adam Presnell

Delivered

Dear FOI,

In relation to the request to pay to recieve the required documents, i wish to argue the point that i should have to pay to see the documents.

Section 29 of the Act states:

(5) Without limiting the matters the agency or Minister may take into account in determining whether or not to reduce or not to impose the charge, the agency or Minister must take into account:

(a) whether the payment of the charge, or part of it, would cause financial hardship to the applicant, or to a person on whose behalf the application was made; and

(b) whether the giving of access to the document in question is in the general public interest or in the interest of a substantial section of the public.

With reference to Section (a), the Minister must consider the fact that the refusal to provide the Statement of Reasons by the CEO of the APVMA has caused significant financial hardship already and has resulted in the applicant loosing all their government contracts and lost his house as a result of this. This fee would cause further financial hardship.

With reference to Section (b), the Minister must consider the fact that the information was in relation to the use of an Unregistered Chemical Product that is/was being used on Public Land and is highly mobile as the banned 2,4-D Methyl Esters and potentially 2,4,5-T where being manufactured. There is a cancer Cluster on the Sunshine Coast as a result of the APVMA's decisions that were the nature of this original Statement of Reasons request to the APVMA.

An approximate time frame of 3 1/2 hours on top of the initial 15 minutes given by the APVMA is absurd and an abuse of process. The high fee charged for public documents is being used as an impediment to access this public information in this case.

Yours sincerely,

Adam Presnell

Link to this

From: FOI
Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority

UNCLASSIFIED

Thanks Adam - we will respond to your contention of charges within 30 days after today (i.e. 1 May 2017).

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: TAYLOR, Naomi
Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority


Attachment FOI contention of charges decision.pdf
75K Download View as HTML


UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

Dear Mr Presnell

Please find attached the FOI Delegate's decision regarding your contention of the FOI charges.

Kind Regards
Naomi

Senior Legal Officer | Legal
Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA)
PO Box 6182 Kingston ACT 2604
www.apvma.gov.au | [email address]
P: +61 2 6210 4833

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: Adam Presnell

Delivered

Dear APVMA

I refer to your correspondence LEX 5043, dated 19 April 2017.

I disagree with your findings and find the response deliberately misleading with the intent to pervert the course of justice and cause further illegal deaths.

You claim that i am not under financial duress as a result of your institutional corruption and coverup of the use of GLORICIDE as per the MSDS for the Unregistered Chemical Product and its widespread use. I lost all my work and my home and family because of your deliberate cover-up and protection of the Queensland Government and Sunshine Coast Regional Councils illegal use of this experimental product and the abuse of the APVMA's Permit System, that the APVMA has regulatory jurisdiction over. I am homeless and living in my car due to your systemic negligence, this is the information and evidence that you need to waiver costs that prohibit this FOI request from being made public.

The APVMA have deliberately mis-framed the question so as to to not provide the requested information. You Claim "11.The context of the documents involves a request for a statement of reasons from a person (you) who was not the applicant for the decision made by the APVMA", this is factually incorrect, a complete fabrication and deliberately misleading with the intent to pervert the course of Justice. The request for a Statement of Reasons was not "in relation to the decision of the APVMA to issue a permit (number 11463) to Biosecurity Queensland" as you falsely suggest, the statutory demand for a Statement of Reasons was in relation to the decision the CEO of the APVMA made in her correspondence to me dated 29/11/2011, 22/12/2011, 25/01/2012 etc.

A copy of the letter sent to you requesting the Statutory Demand for a Statement of Reasons is now requested to accompany this FOI Request, so that readers can have all the information at their disposal to make up their own minds on whether or not the APVMA have been participating in a conspiracy and coverup that has killed thousands of innocent people through not investigating the illegal use of GLORICIDE and prosecuting the murderers and environmental terrorists using these products under the auspice of a non existent APVMA permit to allow the use of the product, especially around Aquatic Areas.

The suggestion that the Request for a Statement of Reasons in relation to the provision of Permit 11463 is completely illusory and gives you the excuse to dismiss the application for a FOI and to reassess costs. The Statutory Demand for a Statement of Reasons is related to the decision by the APVMA CEO to not fulfil her Statutory Duties and regulate the use of the Permits and her desire to not investigate the illegal use of Unregistered Chemical Products including products under perpetual review by the APVMA due to known safety concerns. The APVMA has evidence that this mix of chemicals creates third party chemicals but has not sought to access this information directly from the Queensland Government or prosecute the Queensland Government for not providing this information, which again is under the Jurisdiction of the APVMA. The cover-up by the APVMA of GLORICIDE and the ensuing synergistic chemical reactions, is the central matter that needs addressing and was the premise of the original Statutory Demand for a Statement of Reasons.

Your refusal to provide this information and fabricate arguments to dispel the provision of this information including prohibitive costs is typical of the APVMA and contributing to further death of Australians and the contamination of the food chain with chemicals which should of been banned after their use as Chemical Weapons in the Vietnam War including 2,4-D aka Synthetic Oestrogen, a main constituent of GLORICIDE as per the MSDS for the Product produced by Chemwatch, which the APVMA is in possession of. The APVMA needs to answer why they have allowed a chemical under review with the potency of Synthetic Oestrogen has been allowed to be mixed and used under its permits system which does not facilitate or mention that the products can be mixed and used under the permit. This is a blatant overreach and has resulted in banned chemicals being synthesises and the APVMA is trying to cover up this fact and their criminal behaviour causing mass death and disease.

Yours sincerely,

Adam Presnell

Link to this

From: FOI
Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority


Attachment LEX 5100 FOI IR Presnell Decision on internal review Corresp....pdf
71K Download View as HTML


UNCLASSIFIED

Dear Adam

Please find the APVMA's decision on internal review enclosed.

Kind regards

Paul Grutt
Senior Legal Officer | Legal Program
Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA)
PO Box 6182 Kingston ACT 2604
www.apvma.gov.au | [email address]
P: +61 2 6210 4794 | F: +61 2 6210 4787

This email may contain confidential or legally privileged information. Contents of this email should not be communicated or distributed outside the APVMA without the express written permission of the General Counsel.

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: Adam Presnell

Delivered

Dear FOI & APVMA (Acting) CEO,

Thank you for your consideration of reducing the fees, however having to pay a fee to find out why i was refused a legally required Statement of Reasons on decisions the CEO f the APVMA made is an abuse of process. The Statement of Reasons was required then and it is required now.

I sincerely doubt that the APVMA is sorry to hear of my predicament, my predicament is primarily due to deliberate mismanagement and misbehavior of the APVMA. Lets not forget that the APVMA has not completed a review into the use of Synthetic Estrogen, a Vietnam War Chemical Weapons being used in the food chain and accompanied by a doubling of the cancer rate every 10 years since your pathetic and murderous review started and will likely not end unless 2,4-D is ordered by court to be banned from the food chain and the environment. The money that you claim the APVMA has to raise from industry s blood money and the true costs are passed on in full to the community through death and disease and the state governments through cancer treatment.

I can not afford medical treatment at the moment and am living with preventable dental pain as a result of braking my jaw in 5 places last year and the federal government withdrawing my health care card without reason or explanation. This fee along wqith the other $2000 you have quoted for information shows that the APVMA are indeed a criminal disorganization run by white collar terrorists. APVMA are responsible for more death in Australia than any other ogranisation.

If the CEO had provided a Statement of Reasons as required by law the SCRC would of been able to be prosecuted swiftly for the using Unregistered Chemical Products and the ensuing death and disease. I have been contacted by numerous people effected by your total disregard for human life and the environment, forcing some people to move and sell up to get away from Council Chemical drift from using GLORICIDE, presumably the 2,4-D methyl esters that the Qld Dept of Health Labs documented synergisticly produced by Council and most likely the production of 2,4,5-T.

I suggest you provide this information requested without delay and without costs before it is summonsed.

Yours sincerely,

Adam Presnell

Link to this

Locutus Sum left an annotation ()

I have followed several of the requests from Mr Presnell. It is not apparent why the requests so frequently contains threats and abuse.They are completely unnecessary, offensive, and unhelpful. It is not necessary to make sentences such "I suggest you provide this information requested without delay and without costs before it is summonsed." Under the law, the agency is entitled to charge fees. This is what they have done. Also, under the law, the applicant is entitled to ask for a reduction in the fees or a complete waiver of the fees, and the agency is required to consider the submission from the applicant. This also has been done. If the applicant believes that it would be easier to obtain the information that he wants by convincing a court to issue a writ, then the obvious thing to do is to obtain the writ and to stop using the RTI law.

It is useful to note that under s 63 of the Right to Information Act ("Waiver of charges"), the agency is permitted to waive charges ONLY if the requirements of Division 3 of the Act are satisfied. One possibility is for the applicant to provide the agency with a copy of a concession card. There are other possibilities but it is not an option to reduce charges because of the possibility that the information might otherwise be obtained under subpoena.

Link to this

Verity Pane left an annotation ()

You left an annotation (June 15, 2017)

While obviously everyone may hold their own opinions, in communicating them, due regard must be given to whether the facts of any particular situation in question support them (if they don't, one can get into trouble).

I read through the communications of the Applicant here on this FOI application, and while it is not always concise, or directly relevant to the FOI, I didn't find any factual support for the opinions that it contained "threats and abuse" that would infringe civil/criminal law (which is where such classifications belong), nor offensive language. While I cannot comment on other applications, that seems an inappropriate characterisation here.

The applicant seems to be dealing with some significant personal issues, and clearly frustration is evident in his communications, but references to taking legal action etc, which are lawful in our society, seem poorly classified as threatening language (I doubt the agency is concerned by such references).

I think personal comments about applicants are not helpful, when advice should be on the technicalities of the FOI and how best to proceed. As per RtK's moderation policy:
Annotations on Right To Know are to help people get the information they want, or to give them pointers to places they can go to help them act on it.

Link to this

Adam Presnell left an annotation ()

Its very convenient to say lotus that the language is threatening, the bureaucrats should not feel threatened but they are no doubt aware of the consequences and ramifications of there actions.

They are more than aware that there actions are deliberately illegal and that their actions and in actions are causing mass death, mass disease and mass suffering. They know that the consequences of their actions will stay with them for life and they will ultimately have to take responsibility for the suffering that they are inflicting on others for the sake of getting rich. They know that they will go to jail and have their supers confiscated for there deliberate negligence.

However, lets look at the real issue. For the 30 years the APVMA has been doing an investigation into the use of chemical weapons used in the Vietnam war, applied to the food-chain.

The chemical weapons 2,4-D etc are a synthetic form of Estrogen and are now part of the diet of virtually all Australians. Since the beginning of the perpetual study of 2,4-D, the cancer rate has doubled every 10 years. Do you think it wise and prudent that the APVMA have stood back and allowed the product under investigation for 30 years to go and then be used in another chemical reaction to create a new product without any restrictions or regulation whatsoever? New products have to be registered, experimental products can only be used up to 10m2 nationally outside of a research station. GLORICIDE is unregisterable and used on mass without a valid permit.

There are laws to prohibit this recklessness and there are people paid by us to regulate and prosecute these murders, however the regulators are intentionally covering up this crime and so are the responsible politicians. The criminals in this case are the regulators and are refusing to investigate and thus protecting themselves and their fellow bureaucrats and politicians from jail time, meanwhile the people that pay their salaries die by the tens of thousand.

The APVMA and its Minister/s are receiving blood money off the manufactures of these products through product registrations and political donations (either directly or indirectly).

I asked the CEO for a legally required Statement of Reasons as to why she allowed the inventors of GLORICIDE (a government body) to use the product in and around waterways and without either a product registration or a valid permit. She refused and has refused to regulate the chemical cowboys that are actively out there risking other peoples lives.

I've been quoted $1000-2000 to access information relating to chemicals i have been exposed to. I have made numerous Adverse Incidents reports and yet they are not published or reported. I had to go to the PM to have the incident acknowledged and still it s not reported.

Lets get this straight, people have died and will continue to die due to a premeditated failure to act and actively covering up these crimes against humanity and the environment.

The production of Gloricide is a chemical reaction that produces banned substances, these substances are banned due to their innate dangers. They are not risks, they are a death sentence.

You can bang on about me as much as you like, i've heard it all before. If you are so concerned about law and order, why dont you go and find the real killers in Government threatening the lives of all Australians and the environmental terrorists using herbicides illegally in the environment. You wont have to look to far, however they are not going to stop poisoning people, they are receiving to much money off the manufacturers of chemical weapons and are a protected species. They would rather have me killed than risk prosecution.

7 highly paid bureaucrats have just been charged in the US for involuntary manslaughter in relation to a failure to act. There's hundreds of highly paid bureaucrats and politicians in Australia that should be charged with similar offenses for their coverup of GLORICIDE. Is it any wonder they are refusing to provide any information whatsoever to me and others for chemicals that we have been exposed to because of their deliberate negligence and coverup?

Link to this

Verity Pane left an annotation ()

Hi Adam,

I read your annotation, and while it is true that some public servants view FOI as a pain in their backside, and don't administer FOI requests in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) and the s 93A Information Commissioner Guidelines, it is important to - when putting in your FOI applications - to focus any issues you raise in that application directly to what documents (or s 17 information) you want, and not to stray into making statements unrelated to the FOI process itself (that's not to say you shouldn't discuss such matters, but there are other forums designed for that - like Facebook, Twitter, etc, whereas this one is just about FOIs).

If an agency does something wrong in how they handle an FOI, but all means point that out (and if an error of law was committed, fair enough to say you may seek merits review at the OAIC/AAT or judicial review at the Federal Court), but it can be seen as soap boxing if you stray too often or too far into other areas either in the making of your FOI, or in your responses.

Keeping things succinct will also help others follow what's happening better, and provide more helpful information.

If you haven't already, do read the s 93A Information Commissioner Guidelines - they are reasonably well written, and can be a source of decent assistance. They can be found here https://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-infor...

The FOI process can be tough, and not everyone plays by the rules, and it can be very frustrating, but by keeping things on point and well targeted, which comes with experience, you will have some success.

Regards

Verity

Link to this

Verity Pane left an annotation ()

You may find this useful - it outlines the process on Charges Decisions for agency staff. It can help you identify a ground of review https://www.oaic.gov.au/resources/freedo...

Forgot to mention earlier, if you think an agency has not handled your FOI request properly, and you have had no luck with the agency, there are two types of review you can seek from the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC):
* An Information Commissioner's Review - this reviews the merits of the FOI decision/refusal/charges decision; and/or
* s 70 FOI Act complaint - this is a complaint about the conduct of an agency in handling your FOI request, rather than the decision itself.

There is no charge or fees or costs for making these applications, and it can be as simply as just emailing enquiries@oaic.gov.au and telling them what you seek.

Do note however that these processes can be slow going, and tend to be "light touch" reviews, so it is important to make sure any commencement of these processes begins with a concise, well targeted submission on why the decision or conduct was wrong, as per the FOI Act and/or the s 93A Guidelines.

Link to this

From: FOI
Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority

UNCLASSIFIED

Dear Adam

I refer to the APVMA's internal review decision of 22 May 2017 reducing the charge in respect of this request to $50.

You were asked to do one of several things within 30 days of the date of the internal review, for example pay the reduced charge.

As you have not done any of the things asked of you in the notice of internal review, your request is taken to be withdrawn as of 21 June 2017.

Kind regards

Paul Grutt
Senior Legal Officer | Legal Program
Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA)
PO Box 6182 Kingston ACT 2604
www.apvma.gov.au | [email address]
P: +61 2 6210 4794 | F: +61 2 6210 4787

This email may contain confidential or legally privileged information. Contents of this email should not be communicated or distributed outside the APVMA without the express written permission of the General Counsel.

show quoted sections

Link to this

Verity Pane left an annotation ()

Can I suggest, if you seek review, that you may wish to focus on the time the APVMA have allocated for assessing any documents discovered.

The APVMA have estimated in their charges decision, that it would take them 11 hours to process your request - a little over two hours to search for documents within scope, which seems reasonable enough (a little padded, but not outrageous), but about 9 hours to assess any documents found (5 of those hours are free). That 9 hours looks excessive to me, and not consistent with the "lowest reasonable cost" object stated in s 3(4) FOI Act, which states "functions and powers given by this Act are to be performed and exercised, as far as possible, to facilitate and promote public access to information, promptly and at the lowest reasonable cost".

As per the s 93A Guidelines, Agencies and ministers should interpret the "lowest reasonable cost" objective broadly in imposing any charges under the FOI Act. That is, an agency or minister should have regard to the lowest reasonable cost to the applicant, to the agency or minister, and the Commonwealth as a whole. Where the cost of calculating and collecting a charge might exceed the cost to the agency to process the request, it would generally be more appropriate not to impose a charge.

In assessing the costs of calculating and collecting a charge, agencies should also take into account the likely costs that may be incurred by the agency, as well as other review bodies, if the applicant decides to seek further review.

Given the amount sought by APVMA, and that the decision time seems excessive, I think the agency should consider Rita Lahoud and Department of Education and Training [2016] AICmr 5

Link to this

Verity Pane left an annotation ()

Now that the APVMA have reduced their charges estimate to $50 I definitely think Rita Lahoud and Department of Education and Training [2016] AICmr 5 applies, and the costs of collection exceed the amount to be collected.

I recommend putting that to APVMA.

Link to this

Locutus Sum left an annotation ()

It is now, I believe, beyond the power of the Information Commissioner to review any aspect of the request. The applicant might have requested IC review of the imposed charges, as suggested in the correspondence from the agency on 22 May 2017 ( https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/r... ) but now the request is deemed, under the automatic operation of s 29(2), to have been withdrawn. Against this belief is the fact that under s 53A(e), a decision to impose a charge is an access refusal decision and s 54S(1) allows an applicant 60 days to request IC review of an access refusal decision. I have not been able to find any clarification of whether the deemed withdrawal (which is not an access refusal decision), or the imposition of charges (which is an access refusal decision), will take precedence.

The FOI Commissioner has often taken a non-conservative view of the powers of the Commissioner (z.B. Parnell and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport [2011] AICmr3 at paragraph 8) so if the applicant is interested in seeking IC review, he should not be discouraged by the apparent deemed-withdrawal. He should lodge the IC review request and see what happens.

I do not intend anything in the comment here to speak of the merit or the agency charges.

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

Link to this

Things to do with this request

Anyone:
Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority only: