IAN DUNCAN v SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICES

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Introduction 1 Ian Duncan appeals from a decision of the Federal Magistrates Court dismissing his application for judicial review of a decision by a Centrelink officer. The Centrelink officer refused to direct amendment of an internal email containing what Mr Duncan said is incorrect personal information about him. 2 For the reasons that follow the appeal is dismissed. The decision of the Federal Magistrates Court dismissing his application, being made on an application for summary dismissal, was interlocutory in character. Leave is required to appeal against such a decision. While ordinarily little would be required to justify the requisite grant of leave against a summary dismissal the proposed appeal is without merit and utility. Mr Duncan has in fact achieved a significant amendment and annotation to the email of which he complained. The grounds upon which he seeks to appeal are without merit. Leave to appeal will be refused. The appeal will be dismissed as incompetent and Mr Duncan will have to pay the costs of the respondent.

Factual and Procedural Background 3 On 12 June 2003 Ian Duncan, a former Centrelink employee, wrote to the Freedom of Information Officer at the Centrelink Compliance Office in Perth. His letter was an application for amendment to personal information held in Centrelink. The information was said to be contained in an email from a Centrelink Officer Mrs E. Greif to Edith Cleary another Centrelink Officer. The email was dated 26 April 2002. 4 The email sent by Mrs Greif was in the following terms:- I have spoken to Simon Gregor in the Ministerial Liaison team, NSO, and he has faxed to me a request for amendment from a Mr Ian Duncan. Mr Duncan has had all his papers under FOI, in the past. Mr Duncan was employed by Centrelink (ex DEETYA) and was retired due to inefficiency. He has appealed to every appeal board available, and has been on the whole unsuccessful. I have sent him, over a period of years, a substantial amount of paper under FOI, and he has appealed to the AAT for various FOI decisions. Mr Duncan is no longer employed by us. Mr Duncan is not currently receiving any Centrelink benefit. The documents he wants annotated are located on FOI files and on personnel files. It is my opinion that Mr Duncan, having failed through appeal processes to change his situation, is trying to generate unproductive case work for Centrelink, particularly FOI. Mr Duncans request for annotation will take up a lot of my time, and I am not sure that it is in the public interest for me to spend time on his case when I could be working on cases where there is a genuine need for FOI. It will make it difficult to process other requests within the 30 day time restriction. I believe you spoke to Simon, regarding the use of section 24.1, Substantial and unreasonable diversion. Is this a case where the use of this Section may be appropriate? I would really appreciate your help on this one! 5 In his request Mr Duncan challenged the following statements made in the email:-