The applicant submitted that he does not have a surname and that the "." is incorrectly taken to be his surname. He argued that the record should accurately reflect that he does not have a surname in recognition of the cultural, historical and personal significance of his name.

The respondent submitted that the decision to not amend the Department's records is the correct and preferable decision. The respondent provided evidence to the Tribunal that where a person does not have a surname, a dot is used to indicate this in compliance with the Department's policy and to comply with the technical requirements of the Department's systems. The respondent argued that the dot in the surname field is therefore not incorrect or misleading because it signifies that he does not have a surname.

• The Tribunal is satisfied that the entry into the surname field of a "." or dot on Mr Singh's driving licence does not signify that Mr Singh has a surname of "." or dot, but signifies that Mr Singh does not have a surname;
• The Tribunal is satisfied that the recording of Mr Singh's name as "Harvinder ." on his driving licence is not incomplete, incorrect, out-of-date or misleading in a material respect;
• The Tribunal is satisfied that the decision not to amend the record is correct;
• The Tribunal is satisfied that it would not be a preferable decision to exclude the dot on Mr Singh's licence, because to do so could undermine or interfere with a significant aspect of the administrative and public purpose of the system for identifying and recording applicants and holders of driving licences.

Administrative Review - Freedom of Information Act 1991 - Person aggrieved by a determination of the Ombudsman following internal review - Amendment of records

Freedom of Information Act 1991 ss 30, 35, 40

South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 ss 34, 37

Avery v NSW Electoral Commission [2010] NSWADT 6

Crewdson v Central Sydney AHS [2002] NSWCA 345

Morgan v DG Department of Education and Training [1999] NSWADT 91

Mr N Crouch, Wallmans Lawyers, appeared in person for the respondent

Made under the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 s 37(1)(a)

1. This is the determination of an application by Mr Harvinder Singh for review of a Determination by the Ombudsman made on 20 May 2025.
2. Mr Singh made an application for amendment of records pursuant to s 30 of the Freedom of Information Act 1991 (the FOI Act). Mr Singh explained that he only has a given name, "Harvinder", and he has no surname. "Singh" is not his surname, but is part of his given name. However, on his driving licence his name is recorded as "Harvinder .", with the "." (a dot, or full stop) signifying a surname. His application is to amend the record by removing the "." from his driving licence, recording his name as "Harvinder" only. He submitted that the record is incorrect, as "." is not his surname.
3. In his application Mr Singh explains the cultural and historical context and significance of having a given name only. Mr Singh agreed to be addressed as "Mr Singh". He explained he had made his application providing the surname of Singh, as the online application form for the Tribunal required the specification of a surname in order to proceed with the application.
4. The Tribunal has before it the Ombudsman's Determination of 20 May 2025; the provisional determination of 28 April 2025; the original decision of 17 October2024; and the internal review decision of 21 November 2024. In addition, the Tribunal has an affidavit of Jodie Lee Beck, Manager of Assurance and Executive Services in the Department for Infrastructure and Transport, (the Department) dated 26 July 2025, setting out the procedural background to the matter, and detailing the system of identification for those applying for and/or maintaining a driver's licence or seeking to register a motor vehicle. Both Mr Singh and the Department made oral submissions at the hearing of this matter, and I take all this material into account.

1. Mr Singh rejected the view expressed by the Ombudsman that there might be confusion if the Department's policy was to be changed unilaterally permitting him to have no entry under the heading "surname" on his driving licence. He said that although there might be many others within the Department's systems with the name "Harvinder", he was assigned a specific number against his name, which would identify him specifically, and avoid any confusion.
2. Mr Singh told the Tribunal that placing a "." after his given name of Harvinder was effectively giving him a surname, and he did not have one, and wished to maintain the integrity of his cultural identity which assigned a given name only, not a surname. On this basis, he submitted that the document is incorrect, indicating that "." is his surname, which is incorrect (as this is not his surname), and misleading, as he does not have a surname and this suggests that he does. Mr Singh told the Tribunal that all his other official documents, including his Australian and Indian passports, do not have a "." in place of his surname: they identify him as "Harvinder Singh", although he said "Singh" is not his surname, but part of his given name.

1. Mr Crouch provided both written and oral submissions to the Tribunal, submitting that the decision under review is both correct and preferable and should be affirmed.
2. Mr Crouch referred to the affidavit of Jodie Lee Beck made on 25 July 2025 and filed with the Tribunal. Ms Beck is the Manager of Assurance and Executive Services at the Department. In that affidavit Ms Beck describes how the Department is responsible for the implementation and management of a system of identification for those applying for and/or maintaining a driving licence or to register a vehicle. The primary licencing and registration system used in South Australia is known as Transport Regulation User Management Processing System (TRUMPS), and processes about 9 million transactions annually. TRUMPS contains a database of records including the names of customers. For the recording of a person's identity, TRUMPS requires data for the fields of first and last names.
3. Ms Beck refers to the Department's Policy and Procedure Manual - Topic 3, namely, CUSTOMERS WHO HAVE NO SURNAME OR FIRST NAME. The policy requires in these circumstances that "a . (i.e. a dot)" must be recorded against the surname requirement in TRUMPS, or, if there is no first name, against the first name requirement.
4. In her affidavit Ms Beck states that the Department shares data with other governmental agencies and entities, including SAPOL, which have databases that, like TRUMPS, require a surname or last name as a mandatory field.
5. Mr Crouch submitted that any change to a customer's entry in TRUMPS may impact on the ability of the Department to share information with other entities, and he told the Tribunal there are approximately 21,000 instances of credentials where the credential holder does not have a last name, and a dot has been applied in that data field.
6. Mr Crouch submitted that the dot is used consistently within and between agencies as a placeholder, and its use aligns with internal policy and technical requirements. He submitted that the dot placed in the surname field is not incorrect or misleading in a material respect because it does not signify that Mr Singh's surname is a dot, but rather, to signify that he does not legally have a surname. Mr Crouch submitted this is an accurate record. Mr Crouch submitted that the inclusion of a dot is to fill the surname field, not to record a dot as Mr Singh's surname. The dot records that Mr Singh has no surname, which is correct.
7. Mr Crouch submitted further that it is in the public interest that there be consistency in the administration of the information it holds, and consistent application of the policy. He submitted that if the record was amended as sought by Mr Singh, this could undermine the policy and affect the administration of the Department's functions more broadly, including in the exchange of information with other agencies.
8. Mr Crouch referred the Tribunal to the decision of Avery v NSW Electoral Commission [2010] NSWADT 6 (Avery). In that case the Administrative Decisions Tribunal of NSW (ADT) considered an application for the amendment of records pursuant to the equivalent NSW FOI legislation. The applicant sought an amendment of the record of her name on the NSW Electoral Roll, where her name did not appear in its entirety, but in a truncated form. The computer system for recording names only made available 25 characters for each elector's name, and the applicant's full name contained 26 characters. Her name accordingly was variously recorded with initials for some of her given names, or with a letter omitted from one of her given names, or without her second and third given names (only her first and last names). The Electoral Commission refused to amend its records, arguing the records were not incomplete, incorrect, out-of-date or misleading in a material respect, and, in addition, that the decision was preferable, as the public interest is in having a record, and kept as a consistent record.
9. In Avery, the ADT upheld the decision as both correct and preferable. It accepted that the applicant's name was not complete or correct in its recording on the Electoral Roll, but considered that there was no error in a material respect, as there was only the omission of the last letter of one of the applicant's middle given names, and her first and last names were correct. In addition, the Tribunal Member concluded that the decision was preferable, as "... it is in the public interest that there be consistency in the administration of the Electoral Roll and consistent application of the policy that is in place is an important component of that administration" [para 50]. It was acknowledged that the Electoral Commission shared information with other relevant agencies with similar computer systems, and for this reason it was important and in the public interest to keep consistency of records.
10. Mr Crouch submitted these considerations were equally relevant in this matter in considering if the decision was a preferable decision. Consistency of the application of policy in the recording the information across agencies is a matter of public interest.
11. He also submitted that in this matter the decision was correct. He told the Tribunal that the record is not incomplete, incorrect, out-of-date or misleading, as what is recorded is not that a dot (".") is Mr Singh's surname, but that he does not have a surname.

1. Section 34 of the SACAT Act provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with a matter that ... involves a review of a decision. An application to review a decision comes within the Tribunal's review jurisdiction, and the Tribunal is required to examine the decision under review by way of a re-hearing (see s 34(3) of the SACAT Act), and must reach the correct or preferable decision, having regard to and giving appropriate weight to the decision of the original decision-maker (see s 34(4) of the SACAT Act). The Tribunal in conducting a review of a decision and exercising those powers is taken to be standing in the shoes of the original decision-maker, but may also have reference to additional relevant evidence and submissions, as the review is by way of a rehearing.
2. Section 40 of the FOI Act provides a right to apply for review by the Tribunal of the Ombudsman's determination.
3. Section 30 of the FOI Act provides the right for a person to apply for the amendment of records:

A person to whom access to an agency's documents has been given may apply for the amendment of the agency's records if - > > a. the document contains information concerning the person's personal affairs; and

1. the information is available for use by the agency in connection with its administrative functions; and
2. the information is, in the person's opinion, incomplete, incorrect, out-of-date or misleading.

1. The respondent accepted that in this matter the document (Mr Singh's driving licence), contains information about his personal affairs (his name), and is available for use by the agency in connection with its administrative functions, and I am satisfied that the records in question do come within the requirements set out in s 30(a) and (b). I also accept that Mr Singh is of the view that the records for which he seeks amendment are incomplete, incorrect, out-of-date or misleading.
2. An agency may amend its records in accordance with such an application, or may refuse to do so. Section 35 of the FOI Act provides that an agency may refuse to amend its records if it is satisfied that the records are not incomplete, incorrect, out-of-date or misleading (s 35(a)). The agency (the Department) has refused to amend the record in question on the ground that it is not incorrect.
3. If, as in this matter, the respondent refuses to amend its records, the onus is on the respondent to establish that its refusal is justified. However, the applicant bears a preliminary burden to provide evidence in support of the application for amendment, that is, that the information sought to be amended is incomplete, incorrect, out-of-date or misleading: this is clear from Morgan v DG Department of Education and Training [1999] NSWADT 91 [37-39]; and Crewdson v Central Sydney AHS [2002] NSWCA 345 [32].

1. Mr Singh has only a given name, that is, Harvinder. Mr Singh has agreed to be addressed and referred to in these proceedings as "Mr Singh", in recognition of the fact that he was required, by way of the programming of the Tribunal's online application form, to provide a "surname" when making his application. However, I accept he does not have a surname in the commonly understood sense, and his name is "Harvinder". In his application Mr Singh explains the cultural and historical significance to Sikh people, of having a single given name. Mr Singh is Sikh, and these considerations are important to his identity.
2. Mr Singh's driving licence identifies his name as "Harvinder", with a "." (dot, or full stop) entered under "surname".
3. Mr Singh applied to have this record amended on 28 October 2024, pursuant to s 30 of the FOI Act, on the ground that the recording of "." (or a dot) against "surname", was incorrect. Mr Singh requested that the "." be removed, as his only name was Harvinder. Initially his attention was drawn to the details of the Departmental Policy in the TRUMPS database, which requires the recording of a dot (".") against the surname field where the customer does not have a surname. The Department advised that "the practice of recording a dot as a surname helps reduce the risk of multiple identities being created", and was not intended to be disrespectful to any culture. Subsequently the Department advised that such an amendment was not able to be affected in isolation, as similar procedures and practices existed in other agencies across States and Territories to enable data sharing.
4. Mr Singh applied for external review of this decision, and it was upheld by Determination of the Ombudsman on 20 May 2025. This is the decision the subject of review before the Tribunal.
5. Mr Singh states in his application for review of the Determination that the Department "gave me a new surname and disconnect me from my native land because all the documents attained from India and Australia, doesn't recorded surname as a DOT".
6. In upholding the Department's decision, the Ombudsman acknowledged the cultural and historical dimensions of Mr Singh's concerns, but concluded that the use of the dot against the surname field when the person does not have a surname is not intended to imply that the person's surname is a dot, but to indicate that there is no surname. The Determination states that the dot is used consistently and understood by the Department and other agencies as a "placeholder" within this specific meaning. Under these circumstances, the Ombudsman concluded that the dot used in the surname field is not incorrect or misleading in a material respect because it does not imply that Mr Singh's surname is a dot, but is used to signify that Mr Singh does not have a surname, which is an accurate record.
7. The Ombudsman also acknowledged the issues raised by Mr Singh including the personal difficulties this has created for him, and states that the Department has advised that it is exploring long term solutions to address these concerns.
8. I accept the evidence provided by the Department concerning its practices and policies relating to the recording of names of customers, and the requirements of its database. I also accept that the Department routinely shares information with other agencies on a nationwide basis, and for this to occur effectively there needs to be consistency in maintaining the method of recording and the data bases.
9. I accept that it is in the public interest, and the efficiency and efficacy of public administration, that such sharing of information, where authorised and appropriate, should be facilitated by consistent established administrative and technical processes.

1. Section 34 of the FOI Act requires an agency to determine an application to amend its records by either amending its records, or refusing to do so. Section 35 of the FOI Act sets out the bases upon which the agency may refuse to amend its records:

(a) if it is satisfied that its records are not incomplete, incorrect, out-of-date or misleading in a material respect; or

...

1. The Determination upheld the Department's decision not to amend its records, on the basis that the recording of a dot (".") in the surname field of Mr Singh's driving licence was not incomplete, incorrect, out-of- date or misleading in a material respect. Mr Singh's assertion is that it is incorrect and misleading, as he does not have a surname at all, and his surname is not dot, or ".".
2. I accept the Department's evidence that the computer system used by the Department to record names and identity has a requirement for data to be entered against a field of surname. I also accept the Department has a policy to address the circumstances of customers who do not have a surname (or others who do not have a given name). That policy is to enter a "." (dot) in the surname (or given name) field: the dot shows there is no name to be entered into this field, as opposed to suggesting that "."is in itself a name. The "." shows that nothing, or no name, has been inadvertently omitted, and so, as well as enabling the database to be filled as required by the programming, it serves a useful and important administrative function of assuring completeness in the recording of identity or name.
3. I am satisfied that the entry into the surname field of a "." or dot on Mr Singh's driving licence does not, and is not intended, to signify that Mr Singh has a surname of "." or dot. It signifies that Mr Singh does not have a surname, that his name is Harvinder, and that nothing has been overlooked or omitted in indicating he does not have surname.
4. On this basis, I am satisfied that the recording of Mr Singh's name as "Harvinder ." on his driving licence is not incomplete, incorrect, out-of-date or misleading in a material respect. It correctly records his name as "Harvinder" only, and records that he does not have a surname. Nor is the recording of his name incomplete or misleading in any respect.
5. I am satisfied that the decision not to amend the record, on the basis that it is not incomplete, incorrect, out-of-date or misleading in a material respect, is correct.

1. The Tribunal should also consider, pursuant to s 34 of the SACAT Act, if a decision subject to review is a preferable decision.
2. Mr Singh submitted that the decision was not a preferable decision as it failed to acknowledge the cultural and historical circumstances of his single name, and that he was disadvantaged and distressed by the fact that his name was, in his view, misrecorded.
3. I accept and acknowledge Mr Singh's account of the cultural, historical and personal significance of the nature of his name, and his desire to have his name recorded in a manner that affords respect to these considerations. I note that the Ombudsman's Determination and the Department in its response have also recognised these concerns: the Department has indicated (in its submission to the Ombudsman) that it is investigating possible changes and a long term solution; and the Ombudsman suggested to Mr Singh that he apply for a notation to the record, explaining that the dot in the surname field indicates that he does not have a surname.
4. However, while noting these suggestions, I am satisfied that Mr Singh has misinterpreted the "." on his driving licence as signifying a surname. I am satisfied the dot signifies the opposite, that is, the absence of a surname, and indicates that in not including a name in this data field, but placing a "." (dot) in this field, nothing has been omitted.
5. On this basis I am of the view that it would not be preferable to change the record to exclude the dot.
6. In addition, however, I am satisfied that it would not be a preferable decision to exclude the dot on Mr Singh's driving licence, because to do so could undermine or interfere with a significant aspect of the administrative and public purpose of the system for identifying and recording applicants and holders of driving licences. To change Mr Singh's record would be to introduce an inconsistent record into a process which for its efficacy relies on consistency of record. Without such consistency information recorded could not be readily relied upon or shared with other agencies, as that relies upon a common recording process and understanding of the data entries.
7. Having considered the evidence provided by the Department concerning the way in which names are recorded, the requirements of the TRUMPS software, and the significance and public value of being able to share information with other agencies because of the shared commonalities of the recording systems, I accept that the process used by the Department to record the name of a person who does not have a surname is administratively appropriate, in that it serves the end required by that process. That is, it establishes a means of identification, and in a form which enables the proper administrative processes of information sharing to proceed in an efficient and effective manner. The consistent application of the recording process and policy enables a shared understanding, not just within the Department, but across agencies, of what is recorded. I am satisfied that this practice is in the public interest.
8. I note this is a consideration taken into account in Avery. In that case the ADT accepted that the recording of the applicant's name was not correct, as it was truncated because of the limitation of the number of characters available in the Electoral Roll computing system for the recording of a name (the applicant's full name was too long, by one character). The ADT took the view that despite this, the "incorrect" aspect of the recording (leaving off the last letter of the applicant's third given name) was not "material" within the meaning of the relevant legislation as all other (and material) aspects were correct.
9. However, in Avery, in considering if the decision was preferable, the ADT also took into account the nature of the record (not incorrect in a material respect), and that the nature of the recording was governed by the requirements of the data base, which was used in a consistent and subject to the application of policy. In addition, it was noted that the respondent in that case (the Electoral Commission) routinely exchanged information with other agencies which used and recognised similar data bases, so the exchange of information could be effective. The ADT concluded, "... it is in the public interest that there be consistency in the administration of the Electoral Roll and consistent application of the policy that is in place is an important component of that administration" [para 50].
10. In my view similar considerations apply in this matter.
11. Noting that I am satisfied that the recording of Mr Singh's name on his driving licence is not incomplete, incorrect, out-of-date or misleading in a material respect, I am also satisfied that it is the preferable decision that this record not be amended.
12. The preferable decision in this matter is, noting that the record of Mr Singh's name is not incomplete, incorrect, out-of-date or misleading in a material respect, to maintain the record as it is. To do so supports the effective administration of the Department's process of identification of applicants and holders of driving licences in a consistent manner and according to a clearly established and published policy, and which enables other important aspects of the administration of the Department's function, and these considerations mean it is also a preferable decision.

1. I am satisfied the Ombudsman's Determination in this matter is both correct and preferable, and I will affirm the decision under review.