Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2018 04:37:57 +0000
Subject: Internal review of Freedom of Information request - APSC produced document for the IPA
From: Fliccy <xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx>
To: FOI <xxx@xxxx.xxx.xx>

Dear FOI,

Pursuant to section 54 of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the FOI Act), I seek internal review of xxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx’s decision of 21 June 2018 to refuse access to the documents the subject of my request made under the FOI Act on 23 May 2018.

My submissions in support of my application for internal review of Mr xxxxxxxxxxx’s access refusal decision of 21 June 2018 are the same as those set out in my application for internal review of Mr xxxxxxxxxxx’s access refusal decision of 7 June 2018 (APSC ref: C17/2088) as provided by email to the APSC on 6 July 2018.

Thank you.

-----Original Message-----

For Official Use Only
Dear Fliccy

I refer to your email of 17 July 2018 requesting the identity of the individuals who made the following decisions:

i) decision of 15/11/17 to impose a charge of $233.77;
ii) decision of 1/5/18 to consult with third parties per ss.27 and 27A; and
iii) decision of 17/5/18 to consult with me to determine whether I was agreeable to the removal of duplicate and draft versions of documents that fell within the scope of my request

The first of these decisions was made by the then Acting General Counsel, (xxxxxxxx).

The second and third decisions were made by the FOI Coordinator (Karen). I am the FOI Coordinator.

The Commission’s policy in respect of FOI practice is generally to not disclose the names of employees below Senior Executive Service (SES) level. Where names are specifically requested under the FOI Act, disclosure is considered in the usual manner under the FOI Act. Namely, consideration is given to whether the names of employees are exempt from disclosure.

In respect of FOI decision makers in particular, section 26 of the FOI Act requires the name and designation of a decision maker to be given where a decision is made relating to a refusal to grant access to a document or deferring provision of access to a document (s 21). However, the FOI Act does not require the disclosure of an employee’s or decision makers details in respect of decisions to impose a charge, to consult with third parties or to consult with FOI applicants.

In this case, we have agreed to provide you with the details of the former Acting General Counsel and you already have my details as the FOI Coordinator.

Please note that my previous response to your message of 17 July 2018 was inadvertently sent in response when it was, in fact, intended to be forwarded to my supervisor. I apologise for any confusion this may have caused.

Regards


FOI Coordinator
Legal Services

Australian Public Service Commission
Level 4, B Block, Treasury Building
Parkes Place West, Parkes ACT 2600
E: [email address]

Important: This e-mail is for the use of the intended recipients only and may contain information that is confidential, commercially valuable and/or subject to legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that any review, re-transmission,
disclosure, dissemination or other use of, or taking any action in reliance upon this information is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all electronic and hard copies of this transmission together with any attachments.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx

This request has been made by an individual using Right to Know. This message and any reply that you make will be published on the internet. More information on how Right to Know works can be found at:
https://www.righttoknow.org.au/help/officers

If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.

-------------------------------------------------------------------