http://gregsrole.wordpress.com/2013/04/2...

I make this comment to be sure that for you the FOI time line does not go wrong. Also, if you already know this, maybe it will be useful for some other people.

You are naturally correct to say that the Department was obliged to reply to your request by 28.6.2013. They did not. Even next month they might give you all the documents you want and then everything will be good for you but problems could come if the department does not give you the documents.

The problem could be if you wait for a reply and then they say "no". Maybe you will then think that you have 30 days to ask for internal review. That would be the wrong thought.

By law, the department has already said "No". They said "no" yesterday. How? The department did not ask you for extra time to make a decision and so it must be that Section 15AC(3)(a) (Decision not made on request within time--deemed refusal) says that "the principal officer of the agency or the Minister is taken to have made a decision personally refusing to give access to the document on the last day of the initial decision". For you it means that you have until Monday 29.7.2013 to ask for internal review. This is true even if the department does not write a "no" reply until next week. You also have only until Tuesday 27.8.2013 to ask for review by the information commissioner.

Yes, it is correct to say Monday 29.7.2013, not exactly 30 days from 28.6.2013. It is by the reason that exactly 30 days is Sunday 28.7.2013. Sunday does not count if it is at the end; that is how it is said in Acts Interpretation Act 36(2)(b) (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/c...). For 60 days, it is a Tuesday, so the calculation is for exactly 60 days.

Thanks for the heads up Locutus Sum, much appreciated.

My email to the Information Commissioner today (will update again when I hear back):

To the Australian Information Commissioner,

I would like to apply for a review for my FOI request, number 13/060.

Please find attached the results of the internal review that upheld the initial refusal for the request. Further background reading can also be found here: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s...

My main complaint is with the answer given: "that ASIO, not the Attorney-General's Department, is responsible for the provision of security assessments, and that the Attorney-General's Department does have responsibility for decisions in relation to security assessments relating to matters arising under the Migration Act".

I maintain that, as ASIO is under the authority of the Attorney-General's Department, they must have knowledge of decisions made in their department. I find the statement from the Attorney-General's department that there is no oversight in this matter to be profoundly disturbing. In the above quote they say that they are not responsible for ASIO's decisions, but that they are still responsible for decisions made in relation to security assessments. I'm afraid they can't have it both ways.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,
Malcolm Blaney

Dear Mr Blaney

Your application for IC review under FOI Act

Thank you for your request for IC Review of a decision of Attorney-General's Department dated 1 August 2013 under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the FOI Act).

The OAIC is currently processing a large number of complaints and applications for Information Commissioner review and, as a consequence, there may be a delay in your matter being allocated to a case officer. We apologise for any inconvenience this may cause you.

You will be advised when a case officer is assigned to your matter. Your case officer will then contact you to seek further information from you and to discuss your request for IC Review with you.

If your contact details change, you would like to update us about your matter or provide additional information, please contact our Enquiries area by e-mail to enquiries@oaic.gov.au. Please quote the reference number MR13/00316 in all correspondence.

Alternatively you may also contact the OAIC on 1300 363 992 (local call cost – calls from mobiles or pay phones may incur higher charges) during business hours, or by fax on (02) 9284 9666.

Yours sincerely

Office of the Australian Information Commissioner

2 August 2013

Since the Attorney-General's Department has refused the request, there is no point replying to them in regards to their latest clarification. I am also waiting for a case officer to be assigned to my review by the Australian Information Commissioner, so instead I will write my reply here.

The Attorney-General's Department state in their letter of clarification that they omitted the word "not" in their earlier draft, and that the sentence instead should read: "the Attorney-General's Department does not have responsibility for decisions in relation to security assessments relating to matters arising under the Migration Act".

I find this clarification even more ridiculous than the initial refusal. It is basic logic that, as the overseeing department of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, they must have responsibility over their own departments decisions. It seems to me that no amount of clarification should let them weasel out of that fact.

For anyone still interested in this request, I had a call from the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner today which was very helpful.

The problem with going to the Attorney General's department for information about Security Assessments from ASIO is that the FOI laws specifically exclude replies from ASIO, as well as information originating from ASIO. So even though the AG is responsible, their dealings with ASIO will be exempt.

This makes the Department of Immigration a better target for finding information about a person such as Ranjini. Not that information on the Security Assessment can be obtained, as this is by definition exempt from FOI laws. The next logical step in finding out more information on what's happened to Ranjini and others in her situation, would be to request information on the process that led to the adverse Security Assessment.