Documents from/about FOIREQ19/00196 and their handling by OAIC Senior Lawyer Amanda Nowland
Dear Office of the Australian Information Commissioner,
Under s 15(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act), I make a s 15(2) compliant request for access for the following scope below.
This request is an application for the purposes of the FOI Act and notices under the FOI Act are to be sent to email address this request came from.
This application is in three parts:
Firstly, [with redaction of any email address of mine, given it is to be publicly published] full copy of the email received by the OAIC at 12:58pm (by the FOIDR inbox and employee Ms Amanda Nowland) on Wednesday 6 November 2019 from Julie A.
Secondly, full copy (including the attachment, in full) [with redaction of any email address of mine, given it is to be publicly published], of the email sent by OAIC employee Ms Amanda Nowland to Julie A. at 10:07pm on Wednesday 6 November 2019.
Thirdly, any document held by the OAIC that identifies the specific “personal information” in the FOIREQ19/00196 documents had withheld allegedly under s 27(A) until it released them at 10:07pm on Wednesday 6 November 2019, that the OAIC based its claim of that it had an alleged reasonable belief contained the personal information of a third party, that if released could constitute an unreasonable invasion of privacy contrary to the public interest, and that therefore should be withheld under s 27(A) until that third party had used all its review rights, or allowed them to lapse, against access being granted. [To assist you, I have included after the close the same requirements as outlined to Ms Nowland to enliven s 27(A)]
Ciao,
Julie
s 27A is only to be used where there is a ‘reasonably held’ opinion that the document contains material, that if released, could reasonably pose an unreasonable invasion of that third party’s privacy, that disclosure of which would be contrary to the public interest.
What constitutes ‘unreasonable invasion’ requires “a consideration of all circumstances, including the nature of the information that would be disclosed, the circumstances in which the information was obtained, the likelihood of the information being information that the person concerned would not wish to have disclosed without consent, and whether the information has any current relevance” to the FOI scope, to be weighed against the positive duty to disclose under the Act (unless no public purpose would be achieved through release).
Another relevant factor is the weight of any detriment that disclosure may cause to the person to whom the information relates.
But the overwhelming test is that if the alleged disclosure is one that would constitute an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy, but “were of no demonstrable relevance to the affairs of government” then s 47F redaction is to be used in lieu of s 27A third party consultation.
Our reference: FOIREQ19/00238
Dear Julie
Freedom of Information request
I refer to your request for access to documents made under the Freedom of
Information Act 1982 (Cth) (the FOI Act) and received by the Office of the
Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) on 6 November 2019.
Scope of your request
In your email you seek access to the following:
Firstly, [with redaction of any email address of mine, given it is to be
publicly published] full copy of the email received by the OAIC at 12:58pm
(by the FOIDR inbox and employee Ms Amanda Nowland) on Wednesday 6
November 2019 from Julie A.
Secondly, full copy (including the attachment, in full) [with redaction of
any email address of mine, given it is to be publicly published], of the
email sent by OAIC employee Ms Amanda Nowland to Julie A. at 10:07pm on
Wednesday 6 November 2019.
Thirdly, any document held by the OAIC that identifies the specific
“personal information” in the FOIREQ19/00196 documents had withheld
allegedly under s 27(A) until it released them at 10:07pm on Wednesday 6
November 2019, that the OAIC based its claim of that it had an alleged
reasonable belief contained the personal information of a third party,
that if released could constitute an unreasonable invasion of privacy
contrary to the public interest, and that therefore should be withheld
under s 27(A) until that third party had used all its review rights, or
allowed them to lapse, against access being granted. [To assist you, I
have included after the close the same requirements as outlined to Ms
Nowland to enliven s 27(A)]
I note that in part two of your request you have requested an email sent
at 10:07pm. As we received your request at 1:22pm 6 November 2019, I have
taken the scope of part two of your request to be an email sent at
10:07am.
If you do not agree with this revised scope can you please advise as to
the correct scope of your request.
Timeframes for dealing with your request
Section 15 of the FOI Act requires this office to process your request no
later than 30 days after the day we receive it. However, section 15(6) of
the FOI Act allows us a further 30 days in situations where we need to
consult with third parties about certain information, such as business
documents or documents affecting their personal privacy.
As we received your request on 6 November 2019, we must process your
request by Friday, 6 December 2019.
Disclosure Log
Documents released under the FOI Act may be published online on our
disclosure log, unless they contain personal or business information that
would be unreasonable to publish.
If you would like to discuss this matter please contact me on my contact
details set out below.
Regards
Megan
[1][IMG] Megan McKenna | Lawyer (Graduate)
Legal Services
Office of the Australian Information
Commissioner
GPO Box 5218 Sydney NSW 2001 |
[2]oaic.gov.au
+61 2 8231 4292 |
[3][email address]
[4][IMG] | [5][IMG] | [6][IMG] | [7]Subscribe to Information
Matters
***********************************************************************
WARNING: The information contained in this email may be confidential.
If you are not the intended recipient, any use or copying of any part
of this information is unauthorised. If you have received this email in
error, we apologise for any inconvenience and request that you notify
the sender immediately and delete all copies of this email, together
with any attachments.
***********************************************************************
References
Visible links
1. https://www.oaic.gov.au/
2. http://www.oaic.gov.au/
3. mailto:[email address]
4. http://www.facebook.com/OAICgov
5. https://www.linkedin.com/company/office-...
6. https://twitter.com/OAICgov
7. https://www.oaic.gov.au/media-and-speech...
Dear Megan McKenna,
Yes, that should read am, not pm, so the corrected scope is:
Firstly, [with redaction of any email address of mine, and my full name where it appears, given it is to be publicly published] full copy of the email received by the OAIC at 12:58pm (by the FOIDR inbox and employee Ms Amanda Nowland) on Wednesday 6 November 2019 from Julie A.
Secondly, full copy (including the attachment, in full) [with redaction of any email address of mine, and my full name where it appears, given it is to be publicly published], of the email sent by OAIC employee Ms Amanda Nowland to Julie A. at 10:07am on Wednesday 6 November 2019.
Thirdly, any document held by the OAIC that identifies the specific “personal information” in the FOIREQ19/00196 documents the OAIC employee Ms Amanda Nowland had withheld allegedly under s 27(A), until she released them at 10:07pm on Wednesday 6 November 2019, that the OAIC based its claim that it had an alleged reasonable belief that the withheld documents contained the personal information of a third party, that if released could constitute an unreasonable invasion of privacy contrary to the public interest, and that therefore should be withheld under s 27(A) until that third party had used all its review rights, or allowed them to lapse, against access being granted. [To assist you, I have included after the close the same requirements as outlined to Ms Nowland to enliven s 27(A)]
To avoid doubt, ‘Julie A.’ is fine to publish, but my full name is not, nor is my private email address.
A full proper documents schedule is requested (as is normal) for the FOI decision
Ciao,
Julie
Dear Julie
Please find attached correspondence in relation to FOIREQ19/00238.
Kind regards
[1]cid:image001.jpg@01D58D74.E05D47B0 Megan McKenna | Lawyer (Graduate)
Legal Services
Office of the Australian Information Commissioner
GPO Box 5218 Sydney NSW 2001 | [2]oaic.gov.au
+61 2 8231 4292 | [3][email address]
[8]Subscribe
[4]cid:image002.png@01D58D74.E05D47B0 | [5]cid:image003.png@01D58D74.E05D47B0 | [6]cid:image004.png@01D58D74.E05D47B0 | [7]cid:image005.png@01D58D74.E05D47B0 to
Information
Matters
***********************************************************************
WARNING: The information contained in this email may be confidential.
If you are not the intended recipient, any use or copying of any part
of this information is unauthorised. If you have received this email in
error, we apologise for any inconvenience and request that you notify
the sender immediately and delete all copies of this email, together
with any attachments.
***********************************************************************
References
Visible links
1. https://www.oaic.gov.au/
2. http://www.oaic.gov.au/
3. mailto:[email address]
4. http://www.facebook.com/OAICgov
5. https://www.linkedin.com/company/office-...
6. https://twitter.com/OAICgov
8. https://www.oaic.gov.au/media-and-speech...
Dear Megan McKenna,
I note that Part 3 of the FOI received a nil return, meaning there was no legal basis for OAIC Senior Lawyer Amanda Nowland‘s s 27(A) deferment of these documents, and thus it was an abuse of process.
Ciao,
Julie