Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2022 20:29:14 +0000
Subject: Internal review of Freedom of Information request - All supporting documents mentioned in refusal of FOI 22/54
From: C Drake <xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx>
To: FOI Requests <
xxxx@xxxxxxx.xxx.xx>
Dear FOI Requests,
I request a review of the decision to charge fees for my FoI request on the following grounds:-
1. This topic is a matter of public debate (including multiple published refused FoI requests on the "righttoknow" website).
2. My request relates to the topic of "agency decision making", in particular, its disingenuous behavior in respect to denying FoI request for public-interest information (government web sites) by using:
a) multiple inappropriate means (including deliberately misrepresenting legal status), and
b) multiple different and changing excuses, and
c) by making outgoing requests to formerly agreeable stakeholders in order to change their support, and
d) obsequiously pretending you cannot "identify" me (the person who made the FoI request) for the purposes of working out what documents relate to me in the context of those generated by your officers during their contact with the third parties involved in my FoI request, and seeking to change their support of my request.
3. My request specifically seeks to reveal to the public as to why or how the previous refusal decision was made, including highlighting any problems or flaws that occurred in the decision making process: specifically - the fact that your department is using an external third party to perform the duties of your department (maintain the list of government domains) and you are using the fact that this third party is performing your department duties as an excuse to deny FoI access by pretending that confidentiality documents between your department and this entity apply to the information which your department administers in such as way as to prevent its release to the public.
The public deserve to know the tricks your department uses to avoid scrutiny, so we can take appropriate steps to restore our right to know what you're doing.
4. My request satisfies practically all of section 4.190 (including proposed legislation, public debate, inquiry submission, and so forth).
5. Your department has made the advanced decision NOT to release one or more items in my request, including the one you know for certain that I most want to receive (the domain list), and has nevertheless decided to levy a fee knowing full-well in advance that you will not be providing me with access to the document even if/when I pay this fee. Charging for an item that you have no intent to release is fraud.
6. I have zero confidence that you have any genuine intent to release any of the controversial documents or other records (most likely phone recordings, since telephone seems a likely means used in this instance to avoid leaving records) that were used to convince the third party to change their tune from "happy to let me have the list" to "object" and/or have been used to threaten the third party into not allowing my access to them. Again - this FoI request relates to misbehavior of your own staff in carrying out their FoI obligations to the public: charging me for items which you know in advance you will not be releasing is fraudulent.
7. I was extremally disappointed that my review of my first request for this domain list upheld the refusal, especially since it's such an absurd idea that a department can simply draft a contract to make government data "confidential" and then use that to deny an FoI request.
It makes it clear that the officer who processed my review is sympathetic to the officer who refused my request, and was not acting impartially, nor in the best interests of the public or the spirit of the FoI act.
Accordingly, I request that this, my request for another review, be carried out by a different representative who has not previously refused (or withheld a refusal) my access to department records, and one who will act in the interest of the public, the spirit of the FoI, and without sympathy or allegiance to the former FoI officers involved in this dispute.
Yours sincerely,
C Drake
-----Original Message-----
SEC=OFFICIAL
Dear Mr Drake
Please see attached a charges decision letter in relation to your FOI
request (our reference FOI 22/85).
Kind regards
FOI Officer
[1]cid:image001.jpg@01D20F6A.F1CA1B30
FOI Officer | Legal and Assurance Branch
Business Enabling Services
Department of Finance
E: [2][Finance request email]
A: One Canberra Avenue, Forrest ACT 2603
SEC=OFFICIAL
References
Visible links
2. mailto:[Finance request email]
-------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Please note that in some cases publication of requests and responses will be delayed.
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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Be careful with this message
External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe.
