Right to Know is designed to allow people to easily make FOI requests, and to make the released documents public. As Locutus Sum has already pointed out (https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/h...) the reason for a request cannot be considered by an Agency receiving a request.

About 70% of this request (all but the first 2 paragraphs) provides absolutely no relevance to the documents requested, and appears to be a rant about topics which are unrelated to FOI request at hand.

"A Freeman" I would suggest that you have a read of our Help pages, specifically "Why must I keep my request focused?" (https://www.righttoknow.org.au/help/requ...).

Thanks for the advice. The bulk of the request is to inform the FOI officer that the PM has access to numerous radars in the North of Australia mainland and on various islands in the Indian Ocean that MH370 would of had to fly right over if the PM is correct. Not to mention the Australian flotilla with state of the art radar.

The PM announced the search on US government data but has been unable to locate the plane or its flight path, which i am sure sounds strange to all Australians and the rest of the world.

$50m+ is a lot to spend on a search and rescue without one shred of evidence that the plane entered the Australian Search and Rescue area. The Indonesians have not claimed it flew over there airspace and the Thai and Malaysian military have said they where tracking it on there radar up until it inexplicably vanished at 35000 feet, the same time as when the transponder became non responsive.

I wonder if there is an association between the plane vanishing from multiple radars, the transponder being disabled, eyewitness accounts of a fireball at that location, the fact no debris was found and the Australian PM being told to search in the middle of nowhere. It is interesting how an unidentified plane could fly right over the entire Australian Navy amidst reports a plane has gone down in Malaysia and no one batts an eyelid.

I am interested to see if the Australian Government has any of its own information at all, or it is just relying on 3rd party information from foreign governments and corporations.

It is extremely likely it does not have its own information as its most probable that the plane never entered Australias search and rescue area and the PM has been asked to participate in a global cover-up at the expense of the Australian tax payer and justice.

If the government did have a radar signature on the plane, they would of began an immediate search and rescue operation and would know exactly where it went down.

It is extremely unlikely that the PM has any data to provide as part of this FOI request, however it is still important to go through the process to determine whether the PM is spending all this time and money on a wild goose chase on behalf of the US.

The government(s) are on to me already, i have received 10 emails this morning so far regarding summonses to appear in court action. I wonder where they got my email? I could very well be dead before the information is released, if there is any information which of course there isn't.

Out of respect for the victims and there families and the Australian tax payer, it is imperative the PM disclose what information he is relying on.

Thank-you for the rapid response and i await any information that you can provide to help identify where MH370 went down.

Any radar information you provide may prove useful in determining the exact location the plane went down to locate the proper search area. The information may also save passengers lives, save tax payers money and prevent these sorts of things from occurring in the future.

The plane apparently flew right over Christmas or Cocus Islands and its strange that the PM only acted after a dodgy US satellite image.

I notice that you addressed me as Mr. This is not the case and i am offended by the sexual connotation of your response. I do not recognise myself as a Ms or Mrs either, nor any other strawman title for that matter. A non-sexual response is requested in future correspondence please.

I am sure you know who i am, i have been sent 10 messages to my normally quite email thus far today claiming legal action against me and summonsing me to appear in court, which is unfortunate and offensive also. I doubt the PM would order such an intrusion personally, but nevertheless it is happening.

Hi, just a note that annotations aren't sent to the agency.

If you want to send a response, you need to select "Write a Reply" at the bottom of the request.

Cheers,

Ben

It is unfortunate that Mr Fairless is correct (https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s... the application shows a good picture of the wrong way to use Right to Know and the Freedom of Information Act. "Wrong" is to mean only that the purpose and intent of the application is not in a correspondence with the purpose of the site or the Act. For this reason, a site user can know at the start that the application will not provide the result that is wanted.

The explanation for this statement of mine can be read from the applicant's own annotation. He says "The bulk of the request is to inform the FOI officer that ...", and we can see already that the application has gone wrong. The Freedom of Information Act is not to make a communication tube between the public and the government. It is not designed to the purpose of allowing a person a method of speaking to the government. It is not a way for an applicant to be heard ... it is a way to listen! It works only for its design purpose and that is to allow applicants to request access to documents.

The FOI officer will read the application but will not be "informed" of anything. The Prime Minister will not become informed or become wiser. The FOI person will try to understand what document is being requested, whether the department has the document, and whether it is exempt or not exempt. And in that situation it will stop.

A person must find a voice that is not Right to Know if he wants to speak to the government.