MY INTERNAL REVIEW NIGHTMARE

Please note that this blog includes discussion of SELF-HARM, so please consider if you wish to continue reading. There are no photos of self-harm on this page. If you require assistance, please contact the local helpline in your area/state/country.

In Australia you can contact Lifeline on 13 11 14 or visit their WEBSITE
OR contact YARN on 13 92 76 or visit their WEBSITE.

I had a privacy decision of Brisbane City Council’s RTI decision-maker dated 30 September 2021.

On 18 October 2021 I emailed the RTI Unit of Council requesting an extension of time to lodge an Internal Review request. I had included the reasons for such an extension of time to include my ongoing, considerable illnesses. There was already medical evidence of my impairments, notification I was disabled and having already sent my Disability Support Pension (DSP) card to the RTI Unit previously. This card clearly includes it is a DSP card.

I received an email from another staff member in the RTI Unit on 21 October 2021 advising that Council had considered my request for an extension of time to submit a request for an internal review of my application 2021/22-79 and does not approve the request.

My understanding is that Applicants have 20 business days to request an internal review or ‘within the further time the agency of the Minister allows (whether before or after the end of the 20 business days)“. – IP Act legislation – clause 96 – Applying for Internal Review

https://www.oic.qld.gov.au/guidelines/for-government/access-and-amendment/reviewing-a-decision/how-to-conduct-an-internal-review

I had previously been granted extension of time to lodge an Internal Review. My husband had also been granted numerous extensions of time to lodge Internal Review with his privacy matters.

When seeking the extension of time in my email of 18 October 2021, I included that:

“I am concerned that without an extension granted in this matter, preparing an Internal Review request documentation and correspondence by the end of this month places extreme stress and, potentially, may detrimentally affect my health, life and well-being.”
my email of 18 October 2021

Council, or their decision-maker/s, chose to ignore my email, and my obvious concern for my own well-being, life and health. I also do not believe the decision was made with my human rights in mind either. What Government department ignores the honest pleas of a Disabled applicant suffering mental health issues? I just wanted more time, which I’d been granted on another matter, and which I believe caused the largest Council in the country no hardship or expense to allow!

SELF-HARM

After receiving the email of 21 October 2021, and not having my extension of time granted, I self-harmed. I was distraught and panicked. As someone who suffers with multiple mental health conditions, my symptoms sky-rocketed and I failed to cope sufficiently. My husband took me to my doctor, and we also contacted my Psychiatrist. Disclosing self-harm is very shameful for me and I believe this episode could have been prevented. It’s highly distressing to reach the point where self-harm is the answer, and somehow the act eases everything (for a little while). It’s also upsetting for my husband and family. That was not a good time, things were extremely bad.

So move on nearly a week to 27 October 2021 and I again reach out to Council to grant the extension of time. I even send a letter from my treating Psychiatrist on the afternoon of 27 October 2021. I advise in the email to Council’s RTI Unit that

“This letter was prompted because after receiving (name redacted)’ email last Thursday, I became so distressed and overwhelmed that I suffered a mental health episode (self-harm). I then contacted my Psychiatrist and also attended my Doctor’s surgery that evening. I have since undertaken a session today with my Psychiatrist to discuss Council.”
my email to Council’s RTI Unit and Lord Mayor dated 27 October 2021

Photo by Karolina Grabowska on Pexels.com

My email of 27 October 2021 was clearly ignored. Even with the specialist’s letter I was ignored. But something else happened – Council had a Welfare Check done on me within two hours of sending that email. Two police officers and a mental health nurse were at our front door that evening. Not impressed because I was not an imminent concern to myself or anyone else – the self-harm had happened the week before and Council knew that because I had mentioned it in my email. I felt uncomfortably intimidated. If this Council was so concerned for my welfare, then why did they not grant the extension of time especially when the rejection had lead to me self-harming!?

Without an extension of time granted, I had to lodge the Internal Review request on 28 October 2021 as that remained the due date. I was too unwell to be able to work out exactly what I wanted requested (reasons) and the RTI Unit had emailed me that I would need to … “Council only requires a simple written request for the internal review (e.g. I request an internal review be undertaken for my application 2021/22-79 and to include a brief overview for the basis of the internal review request, e.g. redaction of information throughout the documents and/or sufficiency of search) via email to start the process.”.

My #MentalHealth meant I struggled to meet the due date and therefore could not even do a brief overview and provide reasons because I had not had the extra time to work that out.

On 28 October 2021, as late as I could possibly wait, like about 4.30pm and believing the RTI Unit would be closed or closing by that time, so no further correspondence was likely, and believing I was even late to send an email – I requested an Internal Review and was unable to provide reasons. Council had ignored me, even with this latest medical evidence. I felt hopeless, unsupported and like my life, my safety and well-being meant nothing and they didn’t care.

This is a perfect example of why people like me hesitate to reach out now for help. You make mention of your genuine concerns and get ignored. This is how I felt dealing with Council.

“Other times, I look at my scars and see something else: a girl who was trying to cope with something horrible that she should never have had to live through at all. My scars show pain and suffering, but they also show my will to survive. They’re part of my history that’ll always be there.”
Cheryl Rainfield, Scars.

There was an interesting case known as Hurst v State Queensland, which was well summarised here on the Australian Human Rights Commission website – ‘Federal Discrimination Law: Chapter 7 – Damages and Remedies’.

“In Hurst v Queensland,^[218]the Full Federal Court overturned the finding of Lander J that the appellant could ‘cope’, and therefore comply, with the requirement that she receive her education without the assistance of an Auslan teacher or interpreter. The Court held that an ability to cope could not be equated with an ability to comply. The Court further held that the requirement had resulted in serious disadvantage to the appellant as it prevented her from achieving her full educational potential.”

^[218] (2006) 151 FCR 562.

Photo by KATRIN BOLOVTSOVA on Pexels.com

You see, Council appear of the believe that if an Applicant can comply with a FORM request (such as me sending in the FORM, even after completing an Email Application) then I can fill in forms. I complied with the form request, under duress. Failure to comply with the FORM request would result in my application being deemed withdrawn.

Likewise, I ended up lodging the Internal Review Request on the due date, therefore I complied. But I did not cope with having to do all that.

However, ability to cope could not be equated with an ability to comply. In my case, the compliance to lodge the Internal Review request does not mean I coped at the time. In fact, it was the opposite because I self-harmed after having my extension of time request denied.

Please check back later. There is a lot I am working on! Enjoy your day!

I continue blogging about Council’s privacy DECISION/DIRECTIVE here

LINKS: (these will be added to over time) –
Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) current
Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) current
Brisbane City Council RTI Unit webpage
Right to Information Act 2009 (Qld) current
Information Privacy Act 2009 (Qld) current
ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1954 – SECT 48A

Disclaimer: This information is provided respectfully, and to the best of my knowledge, belief, understanding and ability, in all honesty and in good faith. I have genuine concerns about how I believe I was treated, and my experience is based on true events, most of which is made up of correspondence and documents released to me under Privacy processes and/or my own lived experience. I just want the system improved and changed, so others don’t experience what I did.

If you want to drop me a line, then please use the CONTACT LINK

MY PRIVACY NIGHTMARE

Featured

Currently working on a blog about my experience of privacy matters with a local Government Authority in South-East Queensland. I am a Disability Support Pensioner. This is a work in progress. Will cover disability, human rights and discrimination concerns.

Let me just say, the past two and a half years have been one of the most distressing times in my life as regards dealing with an agency. As someone who suffers with multiple mental illnesses and chronic pain conditions, this complaint has practically broken me as a person. I just don’t think I can put this effectively into words as to how horrible things got. Absolutely appalling, and it’s still ongoing. It’s gotten so bad that I felt I needed to make aspects of this complaint public for fear others may go through the same thing as I believe the system needs to change!

You see, on 23 August 2021, I applied for access to my information held with Brisbane City Council. I did my application via email (correspondence) to Council’s Right to Information (RTI) Unit. This was rejected and I was notified that:-

“Since your last application was submitted, Council has improved business procedures and practices in accordance with s24 of the Right to Information Act 2009 (which also relates to Information Privacy applications) and with the support of the OIC, that in order for an application to be considered valid it must be on the prescribed form.

Please complete either form as per the instructions and for the printed manual copy please scan and send via return email to <email redacted> within 10 business days (9 September 2021) or your application will be deemed withdrawn.

Once we have received your completed form Council will process your application and a formal acknowledgment letter will be provided to you.”

However, as a disabled Applicant, I had difficulty in complying and using the FORM, and Council (including the RTI Unit in general) was aware I was disabled. They had previously received a copy of my DSP card, and I had notified them in writing I was disabled. Council also had access to medical evidence of various mental health and medical illnesses (going back to 2014). I had previously applied for access to information from Council via the same method (sending an email, and not completing any FORM).

But no, I was required to complete a FORM, and, under duress, I did so. Afterall, no FORM, no accepted application, and that means no access to the requested information! However, most of my subsequent form included the sentence “see my email to the RTI Unit of Council dated 23 August 2021” repeated throughout various boxes because that was the best I was able to do.

The decision-maker of Council’s RTI Unit ultimately went off my email, because the information they needed to assess my privacy application was within the email, and not all in the FORM!

Fast forward to June 2022, and I only recently was provided access to this little gem of an email via another privacy release –

” Good morning all!
I hope everyone is well.
Not much happened in the office yesterday; lots going on so all were busy bees.
This is particularly relevant to the RTI team, however, is everyone aware that, in relation to access applications, while preference is given to applications via the online form or pdf application form, discretion will be applied should an applicant not wish to or may be unable to complete either form. This position helps us to accommodate everyone and assists us to comply with the Human Right Act 2019 and Anti-Discrimination Act 1991.
If you have any questions in relation to this position, can you please come chat with me?
And also a reminder, if you are interested in the Human Rights training, it is available in SAP.
Have a lovely day everybody!”

The above email was from the Policy & Compliance Manager (and Right to Information) of Council’s City Administration and Governance. I have redacted the names of the Council staff this email was sent to on 7 June 2022, and also the name of the Manager – even though this document is part of an RTI release.

“I wish people could understand that the brain is the most important organ of our body. Just because you can’t see mental illness like you could see a broken bone, doesn’t mean it’s not as detrimental or devastating to a family or an individual.”
Demi Lovato

My understanding is that there is no requirement to complete a FORM, and yet I had to or my application, to my knowledge and understanding, would have been deemed withdrawn. As you’ll see from the email above, Council’s decision-maker could have used discretion to allow my email application (rather than a FORM) but, even as a disabled Applicant, this discretion was not provided to me.

You’ll also read in the email about the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination legislation, and that using such discretion assists Council in complying with such legislation.

I did an email application again for a separate request in September 2021. And, yet again, had the same distress. Complete the FORM or my privacy application would be deemed withdrawn. Again, under duress, I completed the FORM and again I repeated in boxes a similar sentence about the email application and the date. So this didn’t happen once, but twice!

So why have I spent at least 12 months at the Queensland Human Rights Commision, and then had my matter referred to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal? Well, good question!

Of relevance is a piece of legislation – Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), Section 48A (Compliance with forms), and (1) includes ‘If a form is prescribed or approved under an Act, strict compliance with the form is not necessary and substantial compliance is sufficient.“

http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_act/aia1954230/s48a.html

So, if substantial compliance is sufficient (regardless of being a disabled Applicant or not), then why did I have to complete the FORM when my email application was enough? Now, isn’t that the question!

As a disabled person, my experience with this local government authority has been distressing. So distressing I lodged a complaint with the Queensland Human Rights Commission, and subsequently with the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). The QCAT complaint is ongoing in to 2024 (from March 2023).

I will be sharing my experience to help other people in the hope this does not happen to anyone else. No one should have to endure what I have endured, especially those impacted by mental health and/ or chronic medical conditions.

Please check back later. There is a lot I am working on! Enjoy your day!

I continue blogging about Council’s privacy DECISION/DIRECTIVE here

If you want to drop me a line, then please use the CONTACT LINK

QHRC

Queensland Human Rights Commission

Currently working on a blog about my experience of privacy matters with a local Government Authority in South-East Queensland. I am a Disability Support Pensioner. This is a work in progress. Will cover disability, human rights and discrimination concerns.

This post documents my complaint to the Queensland Human Rights Commission (QHRC).

I lodged a complaint with the QHRC involving Brisbane City Council (two of its staff – one an officer and the other a manager) on 20 October 2021.

A right delayed is a right denied.
Martin Luther King, Jr

One thing I will say about the QHRC is that they did have a dedicated Conciliator. This means as a complainant, I had someone who I contacted directly (including via email) with the Commission and didn’t have to deal with a section or division email address (like I have to do with QCAT).

In December 2022, I was shocked to see there were a couple of emails (which were released to me under privacy processes some time later). For example, one email includes ‘ … do you think it’s ok to notify today when there are INRs who might be ANGRY about this …’. These are internal emails of the QHRC from one staff member to another regarding my complaint.

(INRs, to my understanding, means Individually Named Respondents – so this would be Council staff members who are individually named respondents)

Then there is this email, which is part of the email train from the above email …

Look at this wording in the above internal QHRC email, again released to me under privacy processes – ‘The INRs will need to be supported in this one as I imagine they will be quite frustrated.’

Frustrated? What about me as a Disabled applicant/complainant!

Initially, I had raised concerns about a Council officer and manager, with the QHRC including another Council officer (later) as a Respondent. The QHRC wanted to remove the original Council officer from the complaint, stating this officer was not a delegated Decision-maker. However, I provided evidence to the contrary – including a letter from the Council CEO.

The QHRC, despite my repeated objections and protests, allowed the Respondents (Brisbane City Council, 2 officers and 1 Manager) to have legal representation. Not only was there an Internal lawyer for Council itself (representative and decision-maker), but there was at least one External Lawyer from a Brisbane Law Firm.

It was considered by the QHRC that “someone implementing a policy is not the decision maker“. However, this Council officer was a delegated decision-maker for privacy matters and the Officer’s name was on the correspondence to me, and had previously made privacy decisions on privacy application/s.

I raised the argument with the QHRC that “When a Council officer corresponds with me in writing, they are doing so as an authorised officer of Council with decision-making capacity to send such correspondence. If they are not authorised to correspond with me as a member of the public (ie customer, applicant, etc) then they should not have their name, title and contact details on the correspondence.”.

I also provided a copy of a letter from Council’s CEO from November 2020, actually stating that this particular Council officer was indeed a ‘delegated decision maker‘. It’s so important to get these things in writing, otherwise where would I be in proving this!

Ultimately, the QHRC found this was the case and this particular Council officer remained an individually named Respondent (INR). They also included another Council officer that I had not named in my original complaint – so that was the 4 Respondents finalised – Council itself, 2 officers and a manager.

SUPPORT PERSON:
As a Disabled applicant, I notified the QHRC that my husband was my support person. The QHRC then emailed me to advise that they would ask if the Respondents objected to this! I was never asked if I objected to the Respondents having legal representation, although once I found out this was happening then I objected.

I believe this is unfair – to not ask me, as a Disabled applicant, if I object to the 4 Respondents having legal representation yet I have a support person that it appears the Respondents could have objected to. Just ridiculous. I believe this is way too much in favour of a large Council, compared to a Disabled applicant. This is not justice as I see it.

When it came time to conciliation, QHRC decided to put someone experienced on my complaint, as a conciliator, rather than just through the general blitz process …

QHRC usually has up to 3 hours for Conciliation conferences. 3 hours! As a person with significant Disabilities, this really worried me. I initially requested two x 90-minute Conciliation conferences which went a little way to QHRC making an adjustment based on my Disabilities. QHRC was not keen on separate Conferences with each individual Respondent (noting I was up against 4 Respondents, with one being the largest Council in Australia).

The 90-minute split Conference still wasn’t enough for me, and we ended up in a Shuttle Conference process (written Statements going back and forth).

This matter went through the Conciliation process with QHRC, including a Shuttle Conference which was Statements/written material going back and forth. Submitting initial or opening Statements – so I provided a Statement and then the Respondents did their responding Statement. The Respondents raised clarification points, which I responded to in writing.

I had also raised issues with the Respondents Statement as it contained no date I could see or any signatures or the name of the representative who completed it. To a Third party/person – who was the Statement from?

Anyway, ultimately the Respondents, via their External Lawyer, stated they ‘did not propose to further respond’ to my reply (which was providing a response about the clarifications) and an offer of $1,000.00 was made which would also have me sign a Deed of Release (inclusive of terms including non-admission of liability, confidentiality, non-disparagement and release of all claims by me against the Respondents.

I rejected this – nothing changed, nothing improved – so the terms were unacceptable to me. Disability Inclusion is very important to me and I wanted to see something substantial so other Privacy applicants enduring Disability and/or Impairments would not go through what I believe I was put through.

My QHRC matter went on for over a year, before I referred it to QCAT at end of February 2023.

Even seeking an extension of time with the QHRC took 4 lots of emails and a mental health episode. It was a life-changing, horrible experience which I should not have had to endure.

WORK IN PROGRESS … please check back later

Please check back later. There is a lot I am working on! Enjoy your day!

I continue blogging about Council’s privacy DECISION/DIRECTIVE here

Queensland Human Rights Commission (QHRC)

If you want to drop me a line, then please use the CONTACT LINK

QCAT

After having my Brisbane City Council complaint go through the Queensland Human Rights Commission (QHRC) processes, I had that matter referred to QCAT – the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal. (actually, that’s a whole other post in itself which I’ve now started on – QHRC).

As a State Tribunal, I did have the reasonable expectation of professionalism, regard for myself as a Disabled Applicant, and reasonable support, assistance and respect. I also expected a State Tribunal to be impartial as to how they treated me. I expected FAIRNESS also!

I have a few issues with QCAT which I feel worth raising here –

NO DISABILITY SUPPORT
Despite my written request for Disability support with my complaint, this has not happened. That’s been a year now.

NO DEDICATED CASE MANAGER
I have lost count of the number of officers within QCAT we have dealt with – either via email or with the odd phone call. Phone call was necessitated due to lack of response to emails. Every time, literally, you are dealing with someone else. Even with the QHRC I recall allocated conciliators who I dealt directly with. But not at QCAT!

Update – 9 April 2024 – after taking my concerns to Minister Shorten’s office, who referred my correspondence to the Queensland Attorney-General’s office (who is also the Minister for Justice and Minister for the Prevention of Domestic and Family Violence – the Hon. Yvette D’Ath MP. QCAT can make reasonable adjustment for individuals on a case-by-case basis to ensure parties can fully engage in proceedings. Because of this, I now have a Principal Case Manager, so I am thankful for this as I’ve been requesting a dedicated Case Manager for some time. Just a shame the lengths I had to go to, to contact the Government, for this to be facilitated.

FAILURE TO RESPOND OR EVEN ACKNOWLEDGE EMAILS
You are given a particular email address to use in sending submissions and correspondence to QCAT. Up until a few weeks ago, and after I had emailed QCAT about them receipting emails (especially those with submissions or important material as part of complaints), QCAT did not do automatic acknowledgements for emails sent to their allocated email address. In fact, it was touch and go as to how many of my emails actually made it to the appropriate area or person in QCAT, let alone whether they were even read! I also did a QCAT google review voicing my concerns about this Tribunal – seems lots of other people are not happy with QCAT (fancy that).

Photo by Andrea Piacquadio on Pexels.com

MEDICAL EVIDENCE IGNORED
In mid August 2023, I provided two medical letters from my treating doctor and treating specialist. I had been directed to attend a Compulsory Conference which would have been via personal attendance at QCAT in Brisbane or via telephone/video connection. The main reason for the medical letters was because my treating medical professionals had recommended the Compulsory Conference format be changed to a SHUTTLE COMPULSORY CONFERENCE due to my significant, chronic mental health and medical illnesses.

I repeatedly sent these two medical letters and literally begged QCAT to change the format. However, this was ignored or not acted on. The Compulsory Conference remained set, although the date changed and was due to be held at 9.15am on 27 October 2023. Considering I struggle with morning times due to mental health, chronic pain, insomnia and taking multiple medications daily – QCAT had chosen not only to go ahead with the Compulsory Conference in the non-recommended format but had chosen a morning time.

I continued to email QCAT about the Compulsory Conference format. But still, even into October 2023, it remained. I was extremely distressed and remained this way for weeks into months.

Even on 25 October 2023, I received another Directive from QCAT, despite the medical evidence QCAT has now had since 13 August 2023 and my repeated (reminder) emails about same.

BUT WE HAVEN’T GOT TO THE BEST (or worst) PART YET …

The morning of 27 October 2023 arrives. I am exhausted and in extreme pain, medicated, haven’t slept, suffering a migraine, back pain and IBS symptoms as well as various mental health symptoms. I’m dissociating, losing time, panicked and in pain to the point of being distraught. I’m a Disability Support Pensioner. I knew I would not be able to sustain the Compulsory Conference as a verbal format, even over the phone. It can go for up to 3 hours. The Respondents had organised 3 lawyers and who I believe was a Barrister. Plus the 3 individually named respondents. That’s at least 7 people on the other end of the phone, plus the Tribunal Member.

On my end is myself and my husband as my support person. We had needed to prepare a verbal statement over multiple recordings because I was well aware of my medical and psychiatric limitations, plus my medications and the fact this was a morning conference. The plan was to play the recordings because that was all I could do – I couldn’t answer questions, make a decision in my state, focus and concentrate. I was forced to adapt because the only other option was not to attend the Compulsory Conference which, I believe, had negative consequences for me as the Applicant.

QCAT Compulsory Conference – link to webpage

(See if you fail to attend the Compulsory Conference, the QCAT legislation basically includes that the conference may proceed in the party’s absence and this could mean that, if the parties present agree, then a decision adverse to the absent party could be the outcome. Orders, including orders about costs, could be made. Even possible that an order that the absent party be removed from the proceeding, and pay another party’s costs reasonably incurred by the other party as a result of the absent party’s involvement in the proceeding.) This is my understanding based on reading the legislation. But check for yourself!

Look up the relevant QCAT legislation – Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 – Section 72 – Party fails to attend.

Ok so back to the phone call that morning of 27 October 2023. The phone rings and we had set up paperwork all over the dining table with piles of documents with sticky notes, laptop with the pre-recorded statement, two recording devices and my medications/inhaler plus water. In the time prior to the phone call which was due from 9am – I was pacing my anxiety was so high. The person on the other end of phone basically says we have to wait until the others are connected which I’m not prepared to wait and request they call back in that case. So again we wait for another call, and I’m up pacing again and rechecking and rechecking and rechecking what’s on the dining table – I suffer with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) so this is just what I do and it’s exacerbated by anxiety and worry. I also lose time due to dissociative issues and PTSD. QCAT knows this.

The phone rings again – it’s the Tribunal member. He sounds very nervous and flustered. I’m in tears during the conversation, and struggle to even speak let alone keep up with what the Tribunal Member is saying. Long story short the Compulsory Conference in the existing format isn’t going ahead. We’re finding this out at the Compulsory Conference. It’s now going to be a SHUTTLE COMPULSORY CONFERENCE which is what my medical providers had recommended some two and a half months earlier.

You see I had emailed the Tribunal and got to the point of basically saying that if QCAT went ahead with the Compulsory Conference in a format that was NOT recommended, given my significant health issues and there was medical evidence of this, and any harm came to me, I needed medical treatment/hospitalisation or the outcome of the conference went against me because I was not medically able to participate – then I would hold the Tribunal responsible.

So I assumed, given the sudden change that morning, that someone at QCAT had finally read my file and realised it was not a good idea to go ahead with the phone conference. But, why did it take so long? Why distress a Disabled Applicant unnecessarily!

Did I say that the Respondents were planning three lawyers and (who I believe was) a Barrister! Did I feel intimidated, oh hell yes I did. I found all this out on 24 October 2023. A Council internal lawyer, as well as two external lawyers and I believe the 4th legal person was a Barrister.

At the time of writing this blog, QCAT openly publicise on their website that “All parties involved in a matter before QCAT are expected to appear and represent themselves.”. I had repeatedly objected to legal representation for the Respondents and was completely shocked that they were allowed to lawyer up.

QCAT also publicise that “QCAT will only give permission for a party to be represented if it is in the interests of justice to do so.”. So how it is in the interests of justice to allow the largest Council in Australia to lawyer up with 4 lawyers as representation is beyond me.

I am a disabled Applicant, non-represented. I don’t believe the proceedings is likely to involve complex questions of fact or law. I objected to the Respondents having legal representation, as I did during the QHRC conciliation matter, and I did NOT agree to the Respondents being legally represented.

Actually, the QHRC conciliation matter was not resolved, despite the Respondents being legally represented – again they were allowed to lawyer up. Despite my objections, the QHRC allowed that – yet we ended up at QCAT so you can guess how effective that whole setup was.

Please check back later. There is a lot I am working on! Enjoy your day!

I blog about Council’s privacy DECISION/DIRECTIVE here

If you want to drop me a line, then please use the CONTACT LINK

Business Decision/Directive

So what was this Council’s business decision/directive?

Well, when I applied for access to information on 23 August 2021, I received an email response from Brisbane City Council’s RTI Unit dated 26 August 2021 which included:-

“Since your last application was submitted, Council has improved business procedures and practices in accordance with s24 of the Right to Information Act 2009 (which also relates to Information Privacy applications) and with the support of the OIC, that in order for an application to be considered valid it must be on the prescribed form.”

Now between 23 August 2021 (when I sent my email application) and 26 August 2021 (when I received the above email response) there were a few emails including one of 25 August 2021.

By the way, this and other emails have been released to me (only recently) via Council’s RTI Unit as part of an RTI release – hence the watermark ‘RELEASED UNDER RTI’.

Bit of a coincidence, or was it? Within 2 days of applying for access to my information held with Council, and using correspondence (not a form) in the format of an email, this Council just happens to create a business decision/directive to accept applications only via the form in the future. Relevant staff were informed of this decision and the DIRECTIVE applied to all applicants.

The fact that I am a disabled applicant made no difference!

Now the above email was sent from a Privacy Officer in Council to the then Policy and Compliance Manager whose email back included:-

“Thank you for your email in relation to your template wording to provide to applicants.

It is interesting that the OIC factsheet says “may” as both the RTI and IP Acts state that it “must” be on an approved form. As the approved forms for Council are either the online one via the hyperlink or the manual one which you will attach to the email, these are the “approved” forms the applicants will have to complete. This is consistent with the advice all other applicants receive.

“I am happy with the proposed wording below (you will note a “d” is required to be inserted in the last sentence which is highlighted in red).”

“If we witness an act of discrimination but do not speak up or intervene, then we tacitly support it.”
David Suzuki

QUEENSLAND HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION (QHRC) complaint

During my QHRC complaint in 2022, the Respondents (being 3 Council staff and Council itself) via their Lawyer, provided an Opening Statement for the Shuttle Conciliation process. This Opening Statement was in response to my opening Statement of 30 May 2022. It was emailed to the QHRC by Council’s external lawyer on 16 June 2022.

As you can see, there is a watermark across the centre of the above page 2 of 4. This is because I had privacy releases from the QHRC of which this Opening Statement of the Respondents (as part of the Shuttle Conciliation) was released to me. That’s why there is the wording ‘Released under IP Act – QHRC‘.

So the above Statement of the Respondents during the QHRC conciliation process in 2022 included:-

“However, in or around mid-2021, Council reviewed its processes and made a business decision to accept applications only via the online form in the future. Relevant staff were informed of this decision and the directive applied to all applicants.

It was after this time, and as a result of this business directive, that the Complainant was notified that her application would only be accepted via online form.”

So as a disabled privacy applicant, why wasn’t discretion provided to me? I had previously provided Council’s RTI Unit with a copy of my Disability Support Pensioner (DSP) card. I had notified the RTI Unit in writing that I was disabled and Council had medical evidence in the form of medical certificates which were provided since 2014.

“I can’t change the direction of the wind, but I can adjust my sails to always reach my destination”
Jimmy Dean

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: