 |
Legislative
Council |
|
 |
||
| Ian Gilfillan Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council |
Parliament Index |
|
|
Legislative
Council |
|
|
||
| Ian Gilfillan Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council |
Parliament Index |
|
WORKCOVER CORPORATION
The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Attorney- General a question about an application for freedom of information regarding the WorkCover Corporation.
Leave granted.
The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: Under the FOI act, an application for access to a person's personal information held by a statutory authority may be made only with the consent of the person to whom that information relates. If the statutory authority denies the request, the applicant may then appeal the decision in the District Court.
In relation to this, I have been approached by an injured worker, Mr Moore McQuillan, who has recently received a bill for over $36 000 arising from a freedom of information request made to WorkCover by a third party for personal information on Mr Moore McQuillan. The third person made two FOI applications for information held by the WorkCover Corporation relating to Mr Moore McQuillan. Both requests were accompanied by the relevant FOI consent form but Mr Moore McQuillan denies signing the second form. Both the requests were denied.
The second request became the subject of an appeal by the third party in the District Court. Mr Moore McQuillan, believing that the appeal related to the first request, agreed to be a witness in the case. The appeal was subsequently lost and costs were awarded against the third person in the sum of $21 000. Over one year later, in September 1998, Mr Moore McQuillan was summoned to appear before Judge Allen in the District Court where he defended himself against bearing the costs in the initial case in the District Court. The costs were awarded against Mr Moore McQuillan and his subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court in February this year was also unsuccessful.
The basis for transferring the liability for the court costs from the original applicant to Mr Moore McQuillan was argued citing the case of the High Court in Knight v F. Special Assets Ltd 1992. This High Court decision concerned a company bankruptcy seeking to protect the interests of private individuals against companies and corporations which would seek to evade liability after becoming bankrupt. In this case, it was used to argue that, because Mr Moore McQuillan consented to the FOI request and would benefit from the request, he should bear the responsibility for costs.
Mr Moore McQuillan feels victimised because, prior to being found liable for the costs of the initial case, he gave evidence to the Legislative Review Committee hearing on the term of reference on freedom of information. He has informed me that he believes that he was threatened with retaliation from an officer from WorkCover. It was not until December this year that Mr Moore McQuillan was given the bill for over $36 000 for the court costs. My questions to the Attorney are:
1. What are the procedures for verifying consent when personal information is requested under FOI by a third party?
2. Is it common practice by statutory authorities to seek costs in freedom of information appeals to the District Court?
3. Why were the costs transferred from the applicant to Mr Moore McQuillan?
4. What justification was there for the considerable time delay in seeking to transfer the liability of costs to Mr Moore McQuillan?
5. Why was it not until just before Christmas this year that Mr Moore McQuillan was presented with a bill for the court costs?
The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN (Attorney-General): I will have to take the honourable member's questions on notice. It may be that they are more appropriately directed to the Minister for Workplace Relations, who has the responsibility for the Freedom of Information Act, but I will assess it, get some replies and bring them back in due course.
