FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Duncan v Chief Executive Officer, Centrelink [2008] FCA 56

CORRIGENDUM

IAN DUNCAN v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CENTRELINK

No WAD 297 of 2006

FINN J

12 FEBRUARY 2008 (CORRIGENDUM 8 APRIL 2008)

adelaide (heard in perth)

CORRIGENDUM

1.                  On page 5 paragraph 13 of the Reasons for Judgment, delete the first sentence and replace with the following:

“It is common ground that the provisions of s 26 of the FOI Act (which relate to the provision of reasons for a decision refusing to grant access to a document to which access had been requested) are of no present relevance.”

2.         On page 14 of the Reasons for Judgment, delete paragraph 34 and replace with the following: 

            “Having made all of the assumptions I have made in Mr Duncan’s favour, he has not satisfied me that to make the declaration he seeks has real practical consequences.  On 25 July 2006 he sought reasons for the decision not to make the manual available for inspection by members of the public.  His complaint in substance, though, was that at that time he personally was aggrieved by the decision.  On his making of that request, the CEO was in all likelihood bound to furnish that statement for the reasons I have given.  I do not consider it necessary here to enter upon the question whether because of the decision of 21 July 2006 to give him the manual under s 9 he ceased to be aggrieved even though he was not aware of this decision until 27 June 2006, i.e. two days after he made his request for reasons.  As with Hill J in United Airlines at 606-607, I incline to the view that that duty, once enlivened, was “not abrogated” by the later provision to him of the manual.  What the later provision of the manual did, though, was to eliminate the substance of his grievance.  He had been provided by the internal review officer, in accordance with his s 9 entitlement, with the manual to which he claimed the right to inspect and purchase.  Mr Duncan has put on extensive evidence alleging ongoing causes of grievance to him.  His complaint now is essentially that Centrelink still has not identified all the documents falling within s 9(1).  The present is not an application for preliminary discovery with all of the conditions required to be satisfied before “information discovery” is allowed:  see St George Bank Ltd v Rabo Australia Ltd (2004) 211 ALR 147 at [26].  My sole concern, as ultimately was accepted at the hearing, was with the manual and its non-provision.”

Associate:        

Dated:         8 April 2008