Documents and correspondence related to frauds of Ms McIntosh

Mr Valdez made this Freedom of Information request to Family Court of Australia

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

2 followers

The request was partially successful.

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:

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.

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

**********************************************************************

The information contained in this e-mail (including any attachments)

is for the exclusive use of the addressee. If you are not the intended

recipient please notify the sender immediately and delete this e-mail.

It is noted that legal privilege is not waived because you have read

this e-mail.

**********************************************************************

References

Visible links
1. https://www.righttoknow.org.au/change_re...
2. https://www.righttoknow.org.au/help/offi...

hide quoted sections

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

----- Forwarded by Meg Foreman/ACT/FamCrt on 09/09/2016 03:55 PM -----

From: ClientFeedback/ACT/FamCrt
To: Mr Valdez <[FOI #2211 email]>,
Date: 09/09/2016 10:48 AM
Subject: Re: Freedom of Information request - Documents and
correspondence related to frauds of Ms McIntosh [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Sent by: Meg Foreman

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

Dear Mr Valdez
Receipt of your email below is acknowledged.
You will receive a further reply to this matter at the earliest
opportunity.
Regards