Fahey v NSW Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing [2012] NSWADT 181

Administrative Decisions Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Fahey v NSW Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing [2012] NSWADT 181 Hearing dates: On the papers Decision date: 03 September 2012 Jurisdiction: General Division Before: N Isenberg, Judicial Member Decision: The decision under review is set aside Legislation Cited: Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 Charitable Fundraising Act 1991 Charitable Fundraising Regulation 2009 Casino, Liquor and Gaming Control Authority Act 2007 Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002 Cases Cited: Simring v NSW Police [2009] NSWSC 270 Flack v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police [2011] NSWADT 286 Hurst v Wagga Wagga City Council (2011) NSWADT 307 Commissioner of Police v Camilleri [2012] NSWADTAP 19 Category: Principal judgment Parties: David Fahey (Applicant0 NSW Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing (Respondent) Representation: D Fahey (Applicant in person) NSW Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing (Respondent) File Number(s): 123039

reasons for decision

Background 1The following facts are broadly not in dispute. 2Morundah is a close-knit community of 20 people in a village, and 75 in the district. The applicant, David Fahey, has lived there for 15 years and holds a number of positions in the community. 3On 6 May 2011, the respondent received a handwritten complaint alleging that a large number of people were concerned about the way the applicant was running two local charities, namely Morundah Bush Entertainment Committee Incorporated (MBEC) and Morundah Town Improvement Committee. The complainant alleged: * there was a total lack of transparency and no accountability. * * there were no minutes written down of meetings. * * the applicant held three portfolios, President, Secretary and Treasurer. * * the applicant made all decisions concerning any monies. * * the applicant was an undischarged bankrupt. * * a person handed the applicant $500.00 cash to be used as a prize in a raffle. * * no receipt was issued for the $500.00 and the applicant did not conduct the raffle. One can only assume that the money was taken by the applicant for his own use. 4The complaint was investigated by the respondent's inspectors who found that the allegations could not be substantiated apart from the allegation of not issuing a receipt for the $500 donation. The inquiry also determined there was evidence of minor breaches of the Charitable Fundraising Act 1991, the Charitable Fundraising Regulation 2009 and the Charitable Fundraising Authority Conditions which were considered to have been inadvertent and in relation to which remedial action was being taken. No further action was proposed to be taken. 5On 16 August 2011, the respondent wrote to both the applicant and the complainant advising the outcome of its inquiry into the conduct of fundraising appeals by MBEC.