Dear Office of the Australian Information Commissioner,

I seek copy of the RESOLVE Case Reports (under s 17 as they are generated by RESOLVE on request as I understand it) CP18/02632 & MR18/00607.

These RESOLVE Case Report possibly include my private email address, and therefore I would seek to have that redacted before release, but otherwise should just be a list of activities done to date by the OAIC in these matters

As these two computer generated documents should be no more than a page or two right now, the time required to produce this existing template report and review it should be well under the 5 hour free time threshold.

I think it is important the public understands the transparency and accountability the OAIC demonstrates in its processes, and it will also let me know what stage these activities are at so far.

Yours faithfully,

Verity Pane

Attn Amanda Nowland,

Your s 15(5)(a) acknowledgement of 13 September 2018 stated that for this FOI ‘we must process your request by 12 October 2018’. No extension of time or stopping of the s 15(5)(b) clock occurred (no ss 26A, 27, 27A extensions, no practical refusal notice, no charges notice, no s 15AA or s 15AB extensions - nothing).

Is it any wonder the OAIC is absolutely ineffective (intentionally) at enforcing s 15(5)(b) adherence by other agencies, when the OAIC itself flouts the statutory requirements of the FOI Act.

Despite the OAIC recently celebrating Right to Know Day on 28 September this year, it is far to say the OAIC has done more to undermine FOI than to protect and promote it, over these last 5 years. Now it doesn’t even bother to give anything but lip service to the Act itself.

No wonder you have corrupt officers like Carl English making fraudulent s 15AB decisions and ultra vires conversions of Internal Reviews into closed IC ones - if you aren’t meeting even the basic FOI requirements like complying with s 15(5)(b).

DEEMED REFUSAL

An agency or minister must, as soon as practicable, and no later than 30 days after receiving a request, take all reasonable steps to enable the applicant to be notified of a decision on the request (s 15(5)(b)). Section 15(5)(b) provides that the 30-day processing period commences on the day after the day the agency or minister is taken to have received a request that meets the formal requirements of s s15(2), (2A).

In the absence of any valid notification of a statutory ground that extended that processing period, thr statutory date for decision therefore expired on Friday 12 October 2018, and the OAIC breached s 15(5)(b).

A ‘deemed refusal’ occurs if the time for making a decision on a request for access to a document has expired and an applicant has not been given a notice of decision. If this occurs, the principal officer of the agency or the minister is taken to have personally made a decision refusing to give access to the document on the last day of the ‘initial decision’ period (s 15AC). A notice of the deemed decision is taken to have been given on the last day of the decision period.

The consequence of a deemed refusal is that an applicant may apply for IC review (s 54L(2)(a)). An applicant or third party can also apply for IC review of a deemed affirmation of a decision on internal review (ss 54L(2)(b), 54M(2)(b)). In addition, once the time has expired and there is a deemed decision, the agency or minister cannot impose a charge for access.

Where an access refusal decision is deemed to have been made before a substantive decision is made, the agency or minister continues to have an obligation to provide a statement of reasons on the FOI request. This obligation to provide a statement of reasons on the FOI request continues until any IC review of the deemed decision is finalised. The competing view — that a decision maker is functus officio if a deemed decision arises — would have the consequence that an applicant’s right of access under the FOI Act would be impeded through delay on an agency’s part and could only be revived by an application for IC review. This result would be contrary to the objectives and requirements of the FOI Act.

Verity Pane

Dear Ms Amanda Nowland,

I am not aware I gave consent for a change of address for notices, and given Right to Know is where the request was made, the address for notices would be the Right to Know email address generated.

If you sent it elsewhere, other than the specified address for notices, I probably reasonably assumed it was about another FOI.

Yours sincerely,

Verity Pane