Documents and correspondence related to frauds of Ms McIntosh
Dear Family Court of Australia,
I am making the following request under the Freedom of Information Act
1982 (the FOI Act).
Specifically, I draw your attention to section 5 of the FOI Act. Section 5(1)(a) deems a court to be a prescribed authority. This brings the courts under the FOI Act.
I note that Subsections 5(1)(b) and 5(1)(c) removes judicial officers and other officers (ie Registrars) from the operation of the FOI Act for their documents (their documents being documents in their possession). However this immunity extends only to the extent that their conduct is lawful.
Ultra Vires conduct, and documents arising from Ultra Vires conduct is not exempt from the FOI Act. The Hansard record of the debate concerning these exemptions, records that these exemptions from the FOI Act extend only to those documents arising from actions that are within the powers granted under the Family Law Act and to the extent that those actions are within the scope of their lawful power, i.e. power “properly so-called” (see Bienstein and Family Court of Australia [2006] AATA 385 (2006) 43 AAR 34, at [46]-[48]).
Furthermore, I draw your attention to those activities the Family Law Act (the FLA) reserves to the executive branch of government. These activities/functions are those of the Australian Institute of Family Studies, established in Part XIVA Section 114B. Sections 114B(3), 114C to 114F, 114L and 114LB of that part makes unambiguous the minister’s exclusive power to direct, control and prioritise the activities/functions of the AIFS.
I bring to your attention that Section 114LD does not permit the AIFS director to delegate any functions or powers to the judicial branch. Likewise, please note that Section 114M precludes any “parts” of the court (as defined by the FOI Act section 5(1)(c)) from being considered or appointed staff of the AIFS.
In respect to each of these five (5) activities/projects/contracts/assignments:
1) Child Responsive Program Evaluation Report.
2) The Child Responsive Program Pilot, within the Less adversarial Trial
3) The Children's Cases Pilot Project
4) The Less Adversarial Trial Handbook
5) Documents related to family violence screening (as described in Family court Bulletin – issue 10 – July 2012)
I note that each of these five (5) project/activities fall within the scope of the Family Law Act Part XIVA section 114B, that is they are Ultra Vires activities for the the "holder of a judicial office" or other "parts" of the court (as defined in subsections 5(1)(b) and 5(1)(c) of the FOI Act). Consequently, I seek all those documents and correspondence related to these activities that meet the following descriptions, including:
A) Requests for quotes, tender or preferred / preselected panel membership;
B) Selection evaluation criteria used to evaluate proposals / applications / tenders / quotes;
C) Selection panel reports
D) The evaluation reports selecting / awarding the successful tender / contract
E) A copy of each contract(s), progress report(s) and final report(s) related to these contracts.
F) Ethics committee reports, or other similar oversight reports not limited to the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research
G) NHRC and/or ARC Institutional Approvals related to Human Ethics clearance
H) Correspondence between the "holder of a judicial office" or other "parts" of the court (as defined in subsections 5(1)(b) and 5(1)(c) of the FOI Act) and the persons or entities engaged to undertake the five activities referred to above. Specifically, but not limited to Family Transitions Pty Ltd, previously registered as MCINTOSH CONSULTING PTY LTD, (ABN: 87 077 827 019, ACN: 077 827 019) and/or their employees and/or office holders
Finally, I raise a determinative legal point in this request. Namely, the High Court opinion expressed in Kline v Official Secretary to the Governor-General [2013] HCA 52 is an irrelevant authority for refusing any part of this request, because it does not consider a situation like that here:
Where the documents sought are those arising in the course of any "holder of a judicial office" or other "parts" of the court acting Ultra Vires.
Yours faithfully,
Mr Valdez
Dear Mr Valdez
Receipt of your email below is acknowledged.
You will receive a further reply to this matter at the earliest
opportunity.
Regards
The FOI Unit
From: Mr Valdez <[FOI #2211 email]>
To: FOI requests at Family Court of Australia
<[Family Court of Australia request email]>,
Date: 03/09/2016 05:01 PM
Subject: Freedom of Information request - Documents and
correspondence related to frauds of Ms McIntosh
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Family Court of Australia,
I am making the following request under the Freedom of Information Act
1982 (the FOI Act).
Specifically, I draw your attention to section 5 of the FOI Act. Section
5(1)(a) deems a court to be a prescribed authority. This brings the courts
under the FOI Act.
I note that Subsections 5(1)(b) and 5(1)(c) removes judicial officers and
other officers (ie Registrars) from the operation of the FOI Act for their
documents (their documents being documents in their possession). However
this immunity extends only to the extent that their conduct is lawful.
Ultra Vires conduct, and documents arising from Ultra Vires conduct is not
exempt from the FOI Act. The Hansard record of the debate concerning
these exemptions, records that these exemptions from the FOI Act extend
only to those documents arising from actions that are within the powers
granted under the Family Law Act and to the extent that those actions are
within the scope of their lawful power, i.e. power “properly so-called”
(see Bienstein and Family Court of Australia [2006] AATA 385 (2006) 43 AAR
34, at [46]-[48]).
Furthermore, I draw your attention to those activities the Family Law Act
(the FLA) reserves to the executive branch of government. These
activities/functions are those of the Australian Institute of Family
Studies, established in Part XIVA Section 114B. Sections 114B(3), 114C to
114F, 114L and 114LB of that part makes unambiguous the minister’s
exclusive power to direct, control and prioritise the activities/functions
of the AIFS.
I bring to your attention that Section 114LD does not permit the AIFS
director to delegate any functions or powers to the judicial branch.
Likewise, please note that Section 114M precludes any “parts” of the
court (as defined by the FOI Act section 5(1)(c)) from being considered or
appointed staff of the AIFS.
In respect to each of these five (5)
activities/projects/contracts/assignments:
1) Child Responsive Program Evaluation Report.
2) The Child Responsive Program Pilot, within the Less adversarial Trial
3) The Children's Cases Pilot Project
4) The Less Adversarial Trial Handbook
5) Documents related to family violence screening (as described in Family
court Bulletin – issue 10 – July 2012)
I note that each of these five (5) project/activities fall within the
scope of the Family Law Act Part XIVA section 114B, that is they are Ultra
Vires activities for the the "holder of a judicial office" or other
"parts" of the court (as defined in subsections 5(1)(b) and 5(1)(c) of the
FOI Act). Consequently, I seek all those documents and correspondence
related to these activities that meet the following descriptions,
including:
A) Requests for quotes, tender or preferred / preselected panel
membership;
B) Selection evaluation criteria used to evaluate proposals / applications
/ tenders / quotes;
C) Selection panel reports
D) The evaluation reports selecting / awarding the successful tender /
contract
E) A copy of each contract(s), progress report(s) and final report(s)
related to these contracts.
F) Ethics committee reports, or other similar oversight reports not
limited to the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research
G) NHRC and/or ARC Institutional Approvals related to Human Ethics
clearance
H) Correspondence between the "holder of a judicial office" or other
"parts" of the court (as defined in subsections 5(1)(b) and 5(1)(c) of the
FOI Act) and the persons or entities engaged to undertake the five
activities referred to above. Specifically, but not limited to Family
Transitions Pty Ltd, previously registered as MCINTOSH CONSULTING PTY LTD,
(ABN: 87 077 827 019, ACN: 077 827 019) and/or their employees and/or
office holders
Finally, I raise a determinative legal point in this request. Namely, the
High Court opinion expressed in Kline v Official Secretary to the
Governor-General [2013] HCA 52 is an irrelevant authority for refusing any
part of this request, because it does not consider a situation like that
here:
Where the documents sought are those arising in the course of any "holder
of a judicial office" or other "parts" of the court acting Ultra Vires.
Yours faithfully,
Mr Valdez
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #2211 email]
Is [Family Court of Australia request email] the wrong address for Freedom of
Information requests to Family Court of Australia? If so, please contact
us using this form:
[1]https://www.righttoknow.org.au/change_re...
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:
[2]https://www.righttoknow.org.au/help/offi...
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.
Dear Mr Valdez
I refer to your email below.
I am writing to ask if you might like to narrow the scope of your request
by advising a time frame in respect of the documents requested.
Regards
The FOI Officer
The FOI Unit
Dear Family Court of Australia,
In response to your request that I arrow the scope of the request by nominating a time frame: to the best of my knowledge the documents relate to experiments and research that commenced in 2003 to date.
Yours faithfully,
Mr Valdez
Dear Mr Valdez
I acknowledge receipt of the information you have provided below.
You will be contacted again on this matter at the earliest opportunity.
Regards
The FOI Officer
The FOI Unit
From: Mr Valdez <[FOI #2211 email]>
To: FOI requests at Family Court of Australia
<[Family Court of Australia request email]>,
Date: 12/09/2016 10:05 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: Freedom of Information request - Documents and
correspondence related to frauds of Ms McIntosh [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Family Court of Australia,
In response to your request that I arrow the scope of the request by
nominating a time frame: to the best of my knowledge the documents relate
to experiments and research that commenced in 2003 to date.
Yours faithfully,
Mr Valdez
Dear Mr Valdez
I refer to your request under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the FOI
Act), for documents specified in your email below as follows -
In respect to each of these five (5)
activities/projects/contracts/assignments:
1) Child Responsive Program Evaluation Report.
2) The Child Responsive Program Pilot, within the Less adversarial Trial
3) The Children's Cases Pilot Project
4) The Less Adversarial Trial Handbook
5) Documents related to family violence screening (as described in Family
court Bulletin – issue 10 – July 2012)
......I seek all those documents and correspondence related to these
activities that meet the following descriptions, including:
A) Requests for quotes, tender or preferred / preselected panel
membership;
B) Selection evaluation criteria used to evaluate proposals / applications
/ tenders / quotes;
C) Selection panel reports
D) The evaluation reports selecting / awarding the successful tender /
contract
E) A copy of each contract(s), progress report(s) and final report(s)
related to these contracts.
F) Ethics committee reports, or other similar oversight reports not
limited to the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research
G) NHRC and/or ARC Institutional Approvals related to Human Ethics
clearance
H) Correspondence between the "holder of a judicial office" or other
"parts" of the court (as defined in subsections 5(1)(b) and 5(1)(c) of the
FOI Act) and the persons or entities engaged to undertake the five
activities referred to above. Specifically, but not limited to Family
Transitions Pty Ltd, previously registered as MCINTOSH CONSULTING PTY LTD,
(ABN: 87 077 827 019, ACN: 077 827 019) and/or their employees and/or
office holders
I also refer to your email of 12 September 2016, also attached below,
which specifies a date range for the documents requested.
From: Mr Valdez <[FOI #2211 email]>
To: FOI requests at Family Court of Australia
<[Family Court of Australia request email]>,
Date: 12/09/2016 10:05 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: Freedom of Information request - Documents and
correspondence related to frauds of Ms McIntosh [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Family Court of Australia,
In response to your request that I narrow the scope of the request by
nominating a time frame: to the best of my knowledge the documents relate
to experiments and research that commenced in 2003 to date.
Yours faithfully,
Mr Valdez
Searches of the following areas of the Court have been conducted - the
corporate services areas of the Federal Court of Australia (which
currently provides corporate services for the Family Court), the Executive
area, and the Child Dispute Area. I have not conducted searches for any
documents that may be held in Judges' Chambers, as I cannot consider for
FOI processing any documents that can be characterised as documents of a
Judge, as such documents do not fall within the ambit of the FOI Act.
A) Requests for quotes, tender or preferred / preselected panel
membership;
No such documents have been found. Accordingly, I must refuse your request
under section 24A of the FOI Act, which provides for refusal where
documents cannot be found.
B) Selection evaluation criteria used to evaluate proposals / applications
/ tenders / quotes;
No such documents have been found. Accordingly, I must refuse your request
under section 24A of the FOI Act, which provides for refusal where
documents cannot be found.
C) Selection panel reports
No such documents have been found. Accordingly, I must refuse your request
under section 24A of the FOI Act, which provides for refusal where
documents cannot be found.
D) The evaluation reports selecting / awarding the successful tender /
contract
No such documents have been found. Accordingly, I must refuse your request
under section 24A of the FOI Act, which provides for refusal where
documents cannot be found.
E) A copy of each contract(s), progress report(s) and final report(s)
related to these contracts.
I conducted searches for any administrative documents relating to the
points in question, and, as a result, I have located and been provided
with one document that falls within the scope of your request -
1) a contract dated 15 August 2006 between Family Transitions Pty Ltd and
the Family Court of Australia referring to a follow-up study of durability
of outcome post the Child Responsive Program and Children's Cases Project.
As an officer authorised to make decisions under the FOI Act, I have made
a decision to release this document to you with redactions. I have
redacted the contact details of Ms McIntosh under s 47F of the FOI Act, on
the grounds of personal privacy. I have also redacted a Family Court
direct internal phone contact detail on the grounds of section 47F of the
FOI Act. In making these decisions I had regard to section 11A of the Act,
which refers to public interest. In my view, providing access to personal
contact information of a third party would be on balance contrary to the
public interest for reasons that it would undermine the reasonable privacy
expectations of other individuals or agencies dealing with the Family
Court. With respect to the Court's internal contact details, although the
contact details of Commonwealth Officers are sometimes generally made
available, the Court takes a more stringent view on unlimited release for
some of it's officers and areas, given the nature of the work performed by
the Court and the potential for misuse by some litigants in the Court.
This document is attached.
F) Ethics committee reports, or other similar oversight reports not
limited to the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research
The programs to which your FOI request refers are programs which were
developed for judicial application. Reports completed for the judiciary
are considered to be documents of Judges and such documents do not fall
within the ambit of the Act. Accordingly, I cannot consider for release
under the FOI Act any such documents.
G) NHRC and/or ARC Institutional Approvals related to Human Ethics
clearance
I advise that no such documents have been found. Accordingly, I must
refuse your request under section 24A of the FOI Act, which provides for
refusal where documents cannot be found.
H) Correspondence between the "holder of a judicial office" or other
"parts" of the court (as defined in subsections 5(1)(b) and 5(1)(c) of the
FOI Act) and the persons or entities engaged to undertake the five
activities referred to above. Specifically, but not limited to Family
Transitions Pty Ltd, previously registered as MCINTOSH CONSULTING PTY LTD,
(ABN: 87 077 827 019, ACN: 077 827 019) and/or their employees and/or
office holders
Correspondence between judicial officers and other persons or entities are
documents belonging to those Judges, and as such, do not respond to the
FOI Act.
With respect to correspondence between judicial officers and other parts
of the Court, where "other parts of the Court" refers to the
administrative arm of the Court, no such documents have been found.
Accordingly, I must refuse that part of your request under section 24A of
the FOI Act, which provides for refusal where documents cannot be found.
I now consider your request to the Family Court of Australia to be
answered in full and also attach information on your rights of review.
Regards
The FOI Officer
The FOI Unit
From: Mr Valdez <[FOI #2211 email]>
To: FOI requests at Family Court of Australia
<[Family Court of Australia request email]>,
Date: 03/09/2016 05:01 PM
Subject: Freedom of Information request - Documents and
correspondence related to frauds of Ms McIntosh
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Family Court of Australia,
I am making the following request under the Freedom of Information Act
1982 (the FOI Act).
Specifically, I draw your attention to section 5 of the FOI Act. Section
5(1)(a) deems a court to be a prescribed authority. This brings the courts
under the FOI Act.
I note that Subsections 5(1)(b) and 5(1)(c) removes judicial officers and
other officers (ie Registrars) from the operation of the FOI Act for their
documents (their documents being documents in their possession). However
this immunity extends only to the extent that their conduct is lawful.
Ultra Vires conduct, and documents arising from Ultra Vires conduct is not
exempt from the FOI Act. The Hansard record of the debate concerning
these exemptions, records that these exemptions from the FOI Act extend
only to those documents arising from actions that are within the powers
granted under the Family Law Act and to the extent that those actions are
within the scope of their lawful power, i.e. power “properly so-called”
(see Bienstein and Family Court of Australia [2006] AATA 385 (2006) 43 AAR
34, at [46]-[48]).
Furthermore, I draw your attention to those activities the Family Law Act
(the FLA) reserves to the executive branch of government. These
activities/functions are those of the Australian Institute of Family
Studies, established in Part XIVA Section 114B. Sections 114B(3), 114C to
114F, 114L and 114LB of that part makes unambiguous the minister’s
exclusive power to direct, control and prioritise the activities/functions
of the AIFS.
I bring to your attention that Section 114LD does not permit the AIFS
director to delegate any functions or powers to the judicial branch.
Likewise, please note that Section 114M precludes any “parts” of the
court (as defined by the FOI Act section 5(1)(c)) from being considered or
appointed staff of the AIFS.
In respect to each of these five (5)
activities/projects/contracts/assignments:
1) Child Responsive Program Evaluation Report.
2) The Child Responsive Program Pilot, within the Less adversarial Trial
3) The Children's Cases Pilot Project
4) The Less Adversarial Trial Handbook
5) Documents related to family violence screening (as described in Family
court Bulletin – issue 10 – July 2012)
I note that each of these five (5) project/activities fall within the
scope of the Family Law Act Part XIVA section 114B, that is they are Ultra
Vires activities for the the "holder of a judicial office" or other
"parts" of the court (as defined in subsections 5(1)(b) and 5(1)(c) of the
FOI Act). Consequently, I seek all those documents and correspondence
related to these activities that meet the following descriptions,
including:
A) Requests for quotes, tender or preferred / preselected panel
membership;
B) Selection evaluation criteria used to evaluate proposals / applications
/ tenders / quotes;
C) Selection panel reports
D) The evaluation reports selecting / awarding the successful tender /
contract
E) A copy of each contract(s), progress report(s) and final report(s)
related to these contracts.
F) Ethics committee reports, or other similar oversight reports not
limited to the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research
G) NHRC and/or ARC Institutional Approvals related to Human Ethics
clearance
H) Correspondence between the "holder of a judicial office" or other
"parts" of the court (as defined in subsections 5(1)(b) and 5(1)(c) of the
FOI Act) and the persons or entities engaged to undertake the five
activities referred to above. Specifically, but not limited to Family
Transitions Pty Ltd, previously registered as MCINTOSH CONSULTING PTY LTD,
(ABN: 87 077 827 019, ACN: 077 827 019) and/or their employees and/or
office holders
Finally, I raise a determinative legal point in this request. Namely, the
High Court opinion expressed in Kline v Official Secretary to the
Governor-General [2013] HCA 52 is an irrelevant authority for refusing any
part of this request, because it does not consider a situation like that
here:
Where the documents sought are those arising in the course of any "holder
of a judicial office" or other "parts" of the court acting Ultra Vires.
Yours faithfully,
Mr Valdez
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #2211 email]
Is [Family Court of Australia request email] the wrong address for Freedom of
Information requests to Family Court of Australia? If so, please contact
us using this form:
[1]https://www.righttoknow.org.au/change_re...
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:
[2]https://www.righttoknow.org.au/help/offi...
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.