Nicholson v Sydney Children’s Hospital Network [2021] NSWCATAD 87

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Nicholson v Sydney Children's Hospital Network [2021] NSWCATAD 87 Hearing dates: 12 October 2020 Date of orders: 7 April 2021 Decision date: 07 April 2021 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: C Mulvey, Senior Member Decision: (1) The decision of the Sydney Children's Hospital Network made 26 May 2020 is affirmed. (2) Otherwise, the application is dismissed. Catchwords: GOVERNMENT INFORMATION - Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW) - Access - Reasonable Search - Onus Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 Cases Cited: Klaric v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATAP 153 Wojciechowska v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATAP 173 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Belinda Nicholson (Applicant) Sydney Children's Hospital Network (Respondent) Representation: Solicitors: Applicant (Self Represented) Crown Solicitor (Respondent) File Number(s): 2020/00187008 Publication restriction: None

REASONS FOR DECISION 1. On 29 April 2020, Ms Belinda Nicholson ("the Applicant") lodged an application under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 ('the GIPA Act') with Sydney Children's Hospital Network (SCHN) ("the Respondent") seeking: 'Salaries and wages financial information regarding the funding for REQ103906 People and Culture Business Partner SCH (temporary position for two years). The fixed term contract commenced on 2 September 2020 and was supposed to cease on 2 September 2020 (as per letter of offer). The contract was terminated on April 2020 due to the position being deleted as 'SCHN has not identified the ongoing funds to continue these temporary positions'. A second People and Culture Business Partner was advertised in May 2019 (temporary position for two years) but was never recruited. Information regarding the funding of this position is sought to clarify why ongoing funding could not be identified. Specifically seeking the following information: 1 What was the funding for the two People and Culture Business Partner positions, advertised in May 2019? The funded amount for each position (dollars) separately. 2 What was the funding source for the two positions? 3 Documents, reports, internal briefings, emails or any other information that includes where the funding for the two People and Culture Business Partner positions were allocated? 4 Documents, reports, internal briefings, emails or any other information that includes what happened to the funding for the second People and Culture Business Partner that was not recruited in May 2019 and again in November/December 2019? 5 Recording of Skype business meeting held on Thursday 9 April 2020 regarding the deletion of the People and Culture Business Partner position.' 1. The Respondent requested that two directorates, the Director of Workforce and A/Director of Finance and Corporate Services identify any information falling within the scope of the application. 2. On 26 May 2020, a Senior Executive Support Officer for the Respondent determined to provide access to two documents that had been identified in response to the access application, with a minor redaction of personal information from one document. A further document entitled 'Summary Document', was also provided with the Notice of Decision. 3. Unsatisfied with the Respondent's Notice of Decision, the Applicant on 24 June 2020, filed with this Tribunal an application seeking administrative review of the 26 May 2020 Notice of Decision ('The Decision'). 4. Following a case conference, on 30 July 2020, the Applicant by email dated 3 August 2020, provided a list of documents that she sought as part of her revised request. 5. On 19 August 2020, following further additional searches undertaken by the Respondent and its various directorates, a subsequent decision determined to provide access to nine additional documents, with some minor redactions of personal information and information considered to be out of scope. 6. In her written submissions, the Applicant sets out the information she seeks from the Respondent, below: '1 Grading application form for People and Culture Business Partner following 2 FTE positions. 2 SCHN Staff Link Position Creation Requisition Form for 2 FTE People and Culture Business Partner positions. 3 Financial review documents (emails, briefs) of the People and Culture Business Partner positions indicating funding source. 4 Approval documentation for the Tier Two Director and Chief Executive for the recruitment of two People and Culture Business Partners. 5 Approval to fill (ATF) four People and Culture Business Partner positions endorsed by Tier Two finance and the Chief Executive. 6 Other issues raised by the Applicant; clarification regarding 'Grading Briefing Paper' and 'Memo from the Grading Committee to Workforce'.' 1. In her opening, the Applicant said that reason for this application relates questions about evidence of the funding made available by the Respondent for two People and Culture Business Partner positions. The Applicant was previously retained by the Respondent. She said: 'I want to know where the funding came from and where it went to, given the positions were discontinued. There should be information and documentation about where the funding came from and where the funding was allocated.' 1. The Applicant confirmed that her main complaint is about whether reasonable searches have been undertaken by the Respondent to locate documentation she expects to be in existence concerning the People and Culture Business Partner positions which has not been provided to her in answer to the access request. 2. The Respondent submits that the role of the Tribunal in conducting the review is to determine whether reasonable searches have been undertaken. The role of the Tribunal is not to consider the merits of the process conducted but rather, if there is information held by the agency. The Respondent says it has conducted reasonable searches and the Tribunal should find that there is no basis for the Respondent to have in its possession further documents given the searches which have been undertaken.