FOI Request for Detail Incident Report 1-789N5W
To the Department of Immigration and Citizenship,
Dear Sir/Madam,
Under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) I request the following document:
Incident Detail Report 1-789N5W from the Department's Compliance, Case Management, Detention and Settlement Portal. I also request any documents attached to the detailed report.
Kind Regards,
Angela Wilcox
UNCLASSIFIED
Dear Ms Wilcox
Please see the attached notice.
Regards
Linda Rossiter
Director
FOI and Privacy Policy
Department of Immigration and Citizenship
Dear Department of Immigration and Citizenship,
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.
I am writing to request an internal review of Department of Immigration and Citizenship's handling of my FOI request 'FOI Request for Detail Incident Report 1-789N5W'.
Dear Ms Rossiter,
Thankyou for your email. I disagree with your assertion that my request can be linked to other requests in accordance with s 24(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth). My request and the others you refer to are not requests by the same person. This is a condition precedent for the application of this section of the act.
The Office of Australian Information Commissioner Guidelines state that the section is relevant: "two or more requests from the same applicant may be treated as a single request where the agency or minister is satisfied that the requests relate to substantially the same document or documents.” (See Guidelines 3.62)
You must have regard to these guidelines in performing a function or exercising a power under the FOI Act (s 93A(2)).
In addition you wrongly conclude that the requests relate to documents the subject matter of which is substantially the same. My request and other requests relate to incident reports involving different individuals, different types of events, and events at different times and places. The subject matter in each case is likely to be unique not substantially the same.
Your reliance on these grounds for any decision to refuse access for the practical refusal reason that processing the request would substantially and unreasonably divert the resources of the agency from its other operations is misplaced.
Based on this I would like to indicate that I will be declining to vary or revise my request further. You estimate that dealing with my request would take three hours and as such this would not substantially and unreasonably divert the resources of the agency from its other operations. In any event there are strong public interest factors, reflected in the objects of the act, in favour of disclosure of the requested document.
I look forward to true determination of my application.
(A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address):
http://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/fo...
Yours faithfully,
Angela Wilcox
UNCLASSIFIED
Dear Ms Wilcox
Thank you for your response. I recognise that paragraph 3.62 of the FOI Guidelines refers to a single applicant. It does not, however, preclude the treatment of multiple requests from multiple individuals as the same request. As stated in my notice of 24 June, section 24 the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act) does not require the requests to be made from the same applicant. It should also be noted that, even if there was an inconsistency between the FOI Guidelines and the FOI Act, the FOI Act would take precedence over the FOI Guidelines.
These are requests all from a single source, the department’s Compliance, Case Management, Detention and Settlement (CCMDS) portal, and all consist of incident reports and their attachments.
It therefore remains my view that the requests relate to subject matter that is substantially the same for each of the requests. The FOI Act does not require the subject matter to be identical, or for the documents in scope to be the same documents, rather the test employed is that the subject matter is substantially the same. Although the requests were for unique incidents the subject matter, namely ‘incidents in detention’, is substantially the same.
I note your comment that I have estimated that the time required to deal with your request would be three hours. My notice of 24 June advised that, based on the department’s previous experience, assessing incident detail reports and their attachments would take an average of three hours per report. I have not quantified the time required just for your request.
I note also your advice that you do not intend to vary or revise your request further. As stated in my notice of 24 June, I require agreement from each of the applicants in order to accept a position, including that of not wishing to revise the scope of the request. To simplify this process, you may wish to appoint (or nominate yourself as) a representative to take part in consultation with the department. I note that we require that each individual contact the department to nominate a representative rather than a representative appointing him/herself. A lack of response from any of the applicants by the required date will result in the request being deemed withdrawn under s.24AB(7) of the FOI Act.
Please note that my notice of 24 June did not constitute an access refusal decision. Consequently, you are unable to seek review of this notice. Rather, the notice encourages you to consult with the department on the scope of the request. If you are not happy with the department’s handling of the request you may make a complaint to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner. Details of how to do this are in the notice you received and are also available from www.oaic.gov.au.
Regards
Linda Rossiter
Director
FOI and Privacy Policy
Department of Immigration and Citizenship
UNCLASSIFIED
Dear Ms Wilcox
Please see the attached notice.
Regards
Linda Rossiter
Director
FOI and Privacy Policy
Department of Immigration and Citizenship
UNCLASSIFIED