I can't answer your question Bear, but on that subject :
On the contrary, I requested and received my file.....and it contained more info than I expected......probably because some overworked bureaucratic bozo didn't check it for information that should have been withheld..
Apparently at one stage someone had dobbed me in for buying and selling cars and not stating this income to Centrelink. And around that time an idiotic housemate with whom I had a grievance in a share house had given me grief for spray painting near HIS car, one old car I bought and sold. Following this someone gave me another old dead car and I sold it to the wreckers for $100. So it must have been him who dobbed me in, the petty idiot. Although it was a decade before my FOI request, this RE-irritated me, but gave me confirmation that he was a small-minded sneak.
The file does contain a lot of codes though....you have to look them up on the web.
Thanks latindancer that's all good interesting information!
It's just somewhere along the paper trail I have a vague recollection of some medical stuff not being allowed to be released to the client if it may have or thought to have negative impacts on them, either through nominees, carers or medical professionals.
And it just got me thinking; if that's the case, the client should get UP, surely. Cheers bear
P.S. I requested and received my file too, which also contained interesting information that maybe I shouldn't have been privileged to; but it did answer the big question about possible debt and delay with my OAP application. Another bozo trying to backdate DSP to April 2015 after I'd rang and complained I was being robbed of portability.
I gave my lawyer permission and he got everything including that i was granted manifest which i was never told in 8 years and if had of been would not be here now but seems a strange question bear because i wouldn't have believed they could possibly deny it. Looks like they shoot themselves in the foot or even head sometimes though.
bear, I believe you are correct about the fact that if the information may be deemed to be damaging to the person requesting the file then some of that information can be held back. I know with my file from AAT there were parts in there that stated there were to be no documents that could be deemed as harmful or damaging to me, when I asked what this meant and asked for an example of what kind of my own information could be damaging to me I was basically told that if the Dr had made statements about my mental health that may be upsetting they would not be available to me.....things like conclusions of self harm when there has been no admission from the person, observations or stereotypes of behaviors and things like this are all to be blacked out or removed from your copy of the information.
I have a feeling my files are blocked also. But i still wouldn't go through the UP process, because of the gov's aggressive dsp culling agenda.
Your rights The Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act) gives any person the right to:
access copies of documents we hold, except exempt documents ask for information we hold about you to be changed or annotated if it is incomplete, out of date, incorrect or misleading, and seek a review of our decision not to allow you access to a document or not to amend your personal record You can ask to see any document that we hold. We can refuse access to some documents, or parts of documents that are exempt. Exempt documents may include those relating to national security, documents containing material obtained in confidence and Cabinet documents, or other matters set out in the FOI Act.
Most Centrelink Forms regarding applications include somewhere on them a question whether the information would be damaging to a patient. If you doctor says Yes to the question, Centrelink won't give it to you.
Which seems really silly if you actually got the information from the doctor to give to Centrelink in the first place.
So it would seem it would only apply to information Centrelink got directly from your Doctor if they rang them directly and asked them the question.
Thanks mspurple that ties in with where I'm going with this.
I thinking that anyone this may happen too, might be severely disabled enough to have a good shot for UP that's all. Cheers bear
I get what you mean bear, good thinking on your behalf I would guess
I also believe any communications between Doctors and/or specialists must be kept to a very minimum (no information from those documents is to be shared with even the patient) as from what my Doctor said to me those type of communications are under very strict information sharing rules. He told me that it is illegal for him to show me exactly what other doctors or specialists have said to him, this came up when I told him all the information from AAT lvl2 is often made public. He got very concerned as he had submitted documentation to back up my claim that was conversations between him and my psychiatrist, he did some ringing around to ensure these documents were not given or shown to centrelink due to the privacy act that medical professionals documents and letters to each other fall under.