FOI Request for Detail Incident Report 1-4S2OTC
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 1-4S2OTC from the Department's Compliance, Case Management, Detention and Settlement Portal. I also request any documents attached to the detailed report.
Kind Regards,
Daemon Singer
Brisbane
UNCLASSIFIED
Dear Mr Singer
Please see the attached notice.
Regards
Linda Rossiter
Director
FOI and Privacy Policy
Department of Immigration and Citizenship
Dear FOI,
Thank you for your response regarding the number of requests for information about this incident.
I have advised other respondents with whom I am able to be in touch of the decision, including details about the number of respondents, the time required to provide the information and your views as to the veracity of my request.
I have also advised that I am comfortable acting as a spokesperson for the other 85 respondents and I am currently waiting for feedback from them on that issue.
I will advise as soon as I have heard from them, and would appreciate you providing a direct contact within the department with whom I can correspond on this issue.
Yours sincerely,
Daemon Singer
UNCLASSIFIED
Dear Mr Singer
Thankyou for your email. I note your willingness to represent the other applicants involved in this FOI request and will await advice from them regarding their acceptance of your representation.
With regards to a contact person, you may correspond with me via [email address].
Regards
Linda Rossiter
Director
FOI and Privacy Policy
Department of Immigration and Citizenship
Dear Ms Rossiter,
I have been in touch with a number of other people involved in this FOI request, thinking, incorrectly, that all requests were for reports on the same incident. According to the information I got from the people I spoke to none of them had required/requested information on this specific issue, though most of them had asked for information on similar issues.
With that in mind, I disagree with your decision to treat my request as being the same as 85 others, for the simple reason that it isn't. My request rotated around a specific incident at a specific time in a specific place involving specific people. When discussing this issue with other requestors, I found that in their cases, they were looking at completely different incidents, so I fail to understand why my request should be treated as part of a "job lot" of requests.
I'm not sure how your figures of 255 hours were arrived at, since as I understand it the report in full should be available to your office from the time that it is submitted from the Serco staff. If it isn't, it may be worthwhile explaining why since it is my tax dollars paying them.
I believe my request merits your attention in its own right, and due to its public interest and the nature of the issues encompassed by the report involved I do not believe I should have to argue my case any further than that.
Yours sincerely,
Daemon Singer
UNCLASSIFIED
Dear Mr Singer
Thank you for your response. 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.
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 about the 255 hours. Making an FOI decision is not just about accessing a document and releasing it. The content must be assessed in light of the FOI Act as there may elements within the document/s that may be exempt from release. There may be consultation with relevant parties as necessary. There are also administrative actions that need to be taken, including the preparation of a decision letter outlining why information has been exempted if that is the case. This time needs to be accounted for. 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. The calculation of 255 hours is based on the fact that there are currently 85 separate incident reports within the scope of this request.
I note also your revised advice that you do not intend to vary or revise your request further and understand that you will no longer be offering to represent others in rescoping this request. 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. 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.
In closing I note that the subject line of your email mentions an internal review. 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 Mr Singer
Please see the attached notice.
Regards
Linda Rossiter
Director
FOI and Privacy Policy
Department of Immigration and Citizenship
UNCLASSIFIED
Daemon Singer left an annotation ()
Regarding this incident report, I would like to advise that I am in receipt of a letter from the department stating that there are 85 requests for The Same information on this incident. Premised on that, and with the view that the department will take 255 hours to assess all the information and disseminate as per the act, I propose that one of the 85 people be appointed a spokesperson, and that spokesperson then communicate directly with the rest of the co-respondents.
In the absence of anyone better qualified, Or with time available, I am prepared to act as a spokesperson on this FOI request, and keep the rest of the respondents in the loop by email.
Daemon Singer
Executive Board member
Queensland Council for Civil Liberties
Board member
Electronic Frontiers Australia