Dear Office of the Australian Information Commissioner,

I apply under FOI for the agency FOI references numbers inappropriately redacted without consent under s 22 in OAIC FOI REQFOI17/00064 https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/e... (an FOI still under deemed refusal, due to withholding of document contents without consent under s 22 and the provision of documents after the statutory due date - s 15(5)(b) requires documents and decision to be provided within 30 days, and no deferment applied).

These are the numbers given by the agencies in the respective documents that were provided by the OAIC after the statutory due date had expired (s 15(5)(b)).

That information can be provided by releasing those documents again, without those agency FOI reference numbers being redacted, or compiled under s 17 into a discrete document.

Those FOI agency reference numbers are not personal or business information, so no consultation or exemption provisions apply.

Yours faithfully,

Verity Pane

Dear Rachel,

Redacted unethically and inappropriately under s 22 given no consent was given to redact them, and they were within the scope of the FOI as made for REQFOI17/00064, which the OAIC refused to correct - those FOI Agency Reference Number contained in documents released after the statutory deadline (also unethically).

Let’s get one thing very clear from the get go - a FOI decision is not seperate from any documents released only and unless access to the released document/s is deferred under s 21. The Freedom of Information Act 1982 does not allow for any other delay between decision and released documents, because documents are part of the decision.

I’d appreciate it if the OAIC would stop behaving unethically and administer this FOI in accordance with the Act, to it’s letter and spirit, and not to repeat it’s grossly unethical and unlawful behaviours.

It is deeply disappointing that the OAIC seems to abandoned it’s leadership role, and is now continuing the race to the bottom on FOI across the government.

Yours sincerely,

Verity Pane

Dear Rachel,

A reminder, since the OAIC appears to deliberately “forget” sometimes that is required to provide its decision, *including* any released documents, as per s 15(5)(b) (as per the aims and objects stated in s 3(4) “functions and powers given by this Act are to be performed and exercised, as far as possible, to facilitate and promote public access to information, promptly and at the lowest reasonable cost” and the separation and withholding of documents, outside of formal s 21 deferment, runs contrary to the purposive interpretation to s 15(5)(b) that is required to be applied), is due this Friday.

It would be appreciated if the OAIC did not continue with unethical behaviour it has shown to date, and reasonably and ethically provides decision and documents as the legislation anticipates on the statutory due date.

Especially considering the OAIC acted ultra vires in redacting information under s 22 which was relevant and for which there was no consent given to redact.

Yours sincerely,

Verity Pane