Stradford (a pseudonym) v Judge Vasta [2023] FCA 1020
Dear Attorney-General's Department,
Under the FOI Act 1982 I request any and all documents relating to the Commonwealth's involvement in the false imprisonment of the applicant in Stradford (a pseudonym) v Judge Vasta [2023] FCA 1020.
Yours faithfully,
Waldek
Your email has been received by the Freedom of Information and Privacy
Section of the Attorney-General's Department. Please note that we will
only action and respond to FOI requests and other matters relating to the
Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the FOI Act). For information on how to
make an FOI request please refer to the FOI page on the department's
website at:
[1]https://www.ag.gov.au/rights-and-protect....
If your email relates to the FOI Act, we will contact you shortly to
acknowledge and/or respond to your request. Please do not send duplicate
emails as this may cause delays in response time-frames.
For matters not relating to the Freedom of Information Act 1982, please
refer to the ‘Contact us' page on the department's website at:
[2]https://www.ag.gov.au/about-us/connect-u....
If you have received this transmission in error please notify us
immediately by return e-mail and delete all copies. If this e-mail or any
attachments have been sent to you in error, that error does not constitute
waiver of any confidentiality, privilege or copyright in respect of
information in the e-mail or attachments.
References
Visible links
1. https://www.ag.gov.au/rights-and-protect...
2. https://www.ag.gov.au/about-us/connect-u...
Dear Attorney-General's Department,
Also, to the extent that it is not covered by my original FOI request, under the FOI Act I request any and all documents setting out the cost to the Commonwealth of defending the matter in Stradford (a pseudonym) v Judge Vasta [2023] FCA 1020.
Yours faithfully,
Waldek
OFFICIALOFFICIAL
Dear Waldek
Thank you for your email of 10:58am today, clarifying that your FOI
request is addressed to the Office of the Attorney-General, and not to the
Attorney-General's Department. I apologise for the confusion at my end
between your two separate requests.
I confirm the department has received:
o At 2pm on 30 August 2023, an FOI request to [1][AGD request email] addressed
to “Attorney-General's Department”, which we have numbered FOI23/463.
The request is for:
o any and all documents relating to the Commonwealth's involvement
in the false imprisonment of the applicant in Stradford (a
pseudonym) v Judge Vasta [2023] FCA 1020, and
o any and all documents setting out the cost to the Commonwealth of
defending the matter in Stradford (a pseudonym) v Judge Vasta
[2023] FCA 1020 (as per your follow up email of 2:14pm on 30
August 2023).
o At 5:45pm on 30 August 2023, you sent an FOI request to
[2][AGD request email] addressed to “Attorney-General”, which we have
numbered AGOFOI23/465. The request is for:
o any and all documents in your possession relating to the
Commonwealth’s involvement in the false imprisonment of the
applicant in Stradford (a pseudonym) v Judge Vasta [2023] FCA
1020, including documents setting out the cost to the
Commonwealth of defending the matter.
Next steps:
The department will forward AGOFOI23/465 to the Attorney-General’s Office
(AGO) for consideration of validity under s15(2)(b) and for appropriate
actioning.
In respect of FOI23/463, I reiterate the question I asked in my previous
email of 10:27am today:
The department understands you are seeking documents in possession of the
department created after Judge Vasta’s order to imprison the party to the
family law proceedings that relate to the subsequent false imprisonment
civil proceedings brought against Judge Vasta. This includes any documents
relating to the Commonwealth's role in the false imprisonment of the
party, and documents setting out the cost to the Commonwealth of defending
the matter.
Can you please confirm our understanding of FOI23/463 is correct so that
we are able to finalise registration and commence processing your request.
Kind regards
[Personal Information Redacted]
Freedom of Information & Privacy
Attorney-General’s Department
Phone: 02 6141 6666
OFFICIALOFFICIAL
Dear Waldek
Thank you for your email of 10:58am today, clarifying that your FOI
request is addressed to the Office of the Attorney-General, and not to the
Attorney-General's Department. I apologise for the confusion at my end
between your two separate requests.
I confirm the department has received:
o At 2pm on 30 August 2023, an FOI request to [1][AGD request email] addressed
to “Attorney-General's Department”, which we have numbered FOI23/463.
The request is for:
o any and all documents relating to the Commonwealth's involvement
in the false imprisonment of the applicant in Stradford (a
pseudonym) v Judge Vasta [2023] FCA 1020, and
o any and all documents setting out the cost to the Commonwealth of
defending the matter in Stradford (a pseudonym) v Judge Vasta
[2023] FCA 1020 (as per your follow up email of 2:14pm on 30
August 2023).
o At 5:45pm on 30 August 2023, you sent an FOI request to
[2][AGD request email] addressed to “Attorney-General”, which we have
numbered AGOFOI23/465. The request is for:
o any and all documents in your possession relating to the
Commonwealth’s involvement in the false imprisonment of the
applicant in Stradford (a pseudonym) v Judge Vasta [2023] FCA
1020, including documents setting out the cost to the
Commonwealth of defending the matter.
Next steps:
The department will forward AGOFOI23/465 to the Attorney-General’s Office
(AGO) for consideration of validity under s15(2)(b) and for appropriate
actioning.
In respect of FOI23/463, I reiterate the question I asked in my previous
email of 10:27am today:
The department understands you are seeking documents in possession of the
department created after Judge Vasta’s order to imprison the party to the
family law proceedings that relate to the subsequent false imprisonment
civil proceedings brought against Judge Vasta. This includes any documents
relating to the Commonwealth's role in the false imprisonment of the
party, and documents setting out the cost to the Commonwealth of defending
the matter.
Can you please confirm our understanding of FOI23/463 is correct so that
we are able to finalise registration and commence processing your request.
Kind regards
[Personal Information Redacted]
Freedom of Information & Privacy
Attorney-General’s Department
Phone: 02 6141 6666
Dear [Personal Information Redacted],
Thank you for your email.
I requested any and all documents in the control of the AGD relating to the Commonwealth's involvement in the false imprisonment of the applicant in Stradford (a pseudonym) v Judge Vasta [2023] FCA 1020. That request for any and all documents extends to any and all documents setting out the cost to the Commonwealth of defending the matter in Stradford (a pseudonym) v Judge Vasta [2023] FCA 1020.
I did not qualify my request to limit it to documents in possession of the department created after Judge Vasta’s order to imprison the party to the family law proceedings that relate to the subsequent false imprisonment civil proceedings brought against Judge Vasta. And with good reason. There may be documents in the possession of the AGD that, while falling within the scope of my request, as worded, were created BEFORE the orders to imprison issued by Judge Vasta. The scope of my FOI request is clear - it is for any and all document RELATING to the Commonwealth's involvement in the false imprisonment of the applicant in Stradford (a pseudonym) v Judge Vasta [2023] FCA 1020.
If no documents exist that were created prior to the order to imprison made by Judge Vasta AND relate to the Commonwealth's involvement in the false imprisonment of the applicant in Stradford (a pseudonym) v Judge Vasta [2023] FCA 1020, then you will not need to consider those document (on account of their non-existence). If there are documents in existence that relate to the Commonwealth's involvement in the false imprisonment of the applicant in Stradford (a pseudonym) v Judge Vasta [2023] FCA 1020 and existed prior to Judge Vasta's order to imprison the applicant (e.g. any documents that demonstrate that instructions were issued to security guards before Judge Vasta made his orders), then those documents are within the scope of my FOI request.
I want to make it very clear that the words of my FOI request of 30 August 2023 have not changed. There has been no additional context added. I have merely drawn out the logical implications of what a request for "any and all documents relating to the Commonwealth's involvement in the false imprisonment of the applicant in Stradford (a pseudonym) v Judge Vasta [2023] FCA 1020" means.
Please do not read words into my request that are not there. Please do not limit the scope of my request with words that are not there (e.g. any and all documents in the possession of the department CREATED AFTER Judge Vasta’s order to imprison the party to the family law proceedings that relate to the subsequent false imprisonment civil proceedings brought against Judge Vasta). Please give my FOI request the natural, reasonable and ample meaning that a reasonable speaker of the English language would give that request: 'BI’ and Professional Services Review [2014] AICmr 20; Re Anderson and AFP [1986] AATA 79.
Making an FOI request to the FOI section of the AGD should not be this difficult. What objections, if any, do you have to my valid FOI request? If you have concerns about the validity of my FOI request, please particularise them. Otherwise, I will assume, as any reasonable English speaker would (and for the reasons set out above) that my request is a valid FOI request, with all of its attendant implications.
Yours sincerely,
Waldek
Dear Waldek,
Freedom of Information Request FOI23/463
I refer to your request to the Attorney-General's Department (the
department) under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act) for access
to documents.
I have understood your request to be for:
any and all documents in the control of the AGD relating to the
Commonwealth's involvement in the false imprisonment of the applicant in
Stradford (a pseudonym) v Judge Vasta [2023] FCA 1020. That request for
any and all documents extends to any and all documents setting out the
cost to the Commonwealth of defending the matter in Stradford (a
pseudonym) v Judge Vasta [2023] FCA 1020.
If you disagree with this interpretation of your request, please let me
know in writing as soon as possible.
The department received your initial inquiry on 30 August 2023. The
department contacted you to assist you make a valid request under the FOI
Act.
The department acknowledges a valid FOI request was received from you on 4
September 2023, and the 30 day statutory period for processing your
request commenced from the day after that date. You should therefore
expect a decision from us by 4 October 2023. However, the period of
30 days may be extended if the department needs to consult third parties
or for other reasons. We will advise you if this happens.
The department's practice is to not disclose personal information of staff
of the department and other government authorities, where that information
is not publicly known or routinely disclosed (e.g. names of junior
officers and contact information). The names of senior officers will
generally be disclosed. In addition, duplicates and incomplete email
chains within the scope of the FOI request will be excluded.
Please note that, with some exceptions (such as personal information),
documents released under the FOI Act may later be published online on the
department's disclosure log
[1]http://www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProtection....
If you have any questions, please contact me by telephone on (02) 6141
6666 or by email to [2][AGD request email].
[Personal Information Redacted]
Freedom of Information and Privacy | Strategy and Governance Branch
Attorney-General’s Department
T: 02 6141 6666 | E: [3][AGD request email]
The Attorney-General’s Department may collect your personal information
where it is reasonably necessary for, or directly related to, our
functions, including those under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI
Act) and the Privacy Act 1988. We may collect your name, email address and
telephone number so that we can contact you about your request or privacy
complaint. If your request concerns accessing or correcting your personal
information, we will collect the minimum amount of evidence necessary to
verify your identity. We hold personal information in accordance with the
Privacy Act and our privacy policy. If you have an enquiry or complaint
about your privacy, please contact the Privacy Officer on 02 6141 6666 or
via e-mail [email address].
If you have received this email in error, please notify us immediately by
return email and delete all copies. If this email or any attachments have
been sent to you in error, that error does not constitute waiver of any
confidentiality, privilege or copyright in respect of information in the
email or attachments.
References
Visible links
1. http://www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProtection...
2. mailto:[AGD request email]
3. mailto:[AGD request email]
Dear [Personal Information Redacted],
I your email you have stated "The department received your initial inquiry on 30 August 2023. The
department contacted you to assist you make a valid request under the FOI Act."
Both of those statements are false.
The AGD received a valid FOI request from me on 30 August 2023.
My FOI request is, as you have correctly noted, a request, under the FOI Act for "any and all documents in the control of the AGD relating to the Commonwealth's involvement in the false imprisonment of the applicant in Stradford (a pseudonym) v Judge Vasta [2023] FCA 1020. That request for any and all documents extends to any and all documents setting out the cost to the Commonwealth of defending the matter in Stradford (a pseudonym) v Judge Vasta [2023] FCA 1020."
That was my request on 30 August 2023. It has not changed.
Your statement that "the department contacted you to assist you make a valid request under the FOI Act" is false. The AGD did no such thing. Your colleagues, [Personal Information Redacted] and [Personal Information Redacted], either made up facts about the Commonwealth's role in the false imprisonment of the applicant in Stradford (a pseudonym) v Judge Vasta, or read words into my FOI request that were not there.
A valid FOI request was not made, as you falsely claim, on 4 September 2023.
The record speaks for itself and is available to the public.
Since a valid FOI request as made on 30 August 2023, I expect a decision within 30 days of that date. If you or the relevant officials in the AGS fail to provide me with a decision on the due date without lawful cause, I will apply for IC review on the basis of a deemed refusal decision.
Yours sincerely,
Waldek
Dear Waldek
Freedom of Information Request FOI23/463
I refer to your request to the Attorney-General's Department (the
department) under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act) for access
to documents.
The purpose of this email is to advise you that the period for processing
your request has been extended by 30 days to allow the department to
undertake consultation with a third party.
Transfer of FOI Request from the Attorney-General to the Department:
FOI23/500
Separately, your related request to the Attorney-General, the Hon Mark
Dreyfus KC MP, was registered to the Attorney-General’s Office (the
Office) on 4 September 2023.
On 15 September 2023, the Office transferred your request for:
any and all documents in your possession relating to the Commonwealth's
involvement in the false imprisonment of the applicant in Stradford (a
pseudonym) v Judge Vasta [2023] FCA 1020, including documents setting out
the cost to the Commonwealth of defending the matter
to the department pursuant to s16 of the FOI Act, on the grounds that the
subject matter of the request was more closely connected with the
functions of the department than the Office.
The transfer of your request does not affect the due date for completion
of your request but, like FOI23/463, the date for processing FOI23/500 has
also been extended by 30 days to facilitate third party consultation.
The new date for the completion of both your FOI requests is 3 November
2023.
More information is available on the Office of the Australian Information
Commissioner's Website. Information about extensions of time can be
accessed from:
https://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-infor...
If you have any questions, please contact me by telephone on (02) 6141
6666 or by email to [1][AGD request email].
Kind regards,
[Personal Information Redacted]
Freedom of Information and Privacy | Strategy and Governance Branch
Attorney-General’s Department
T: 02 6141 6666 | E: [2][AGD request email]
The Attorney-General’s Department may collect your personal information
where it is reasonably necessary for, or directly related to, our
functions, including those under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI
Act) and the Privacy Act 1988. We may collect your name, email address and
telephone number so that we can contact you about your request or privacy
complaint. If your request concerns accessing or correcting your personal
information, we will collect the minimum amount of evidence necessary to
verify your identity. We hold personal information in accordance with the
Privacy Act and our privacy policy. If you have an enquiry or complaint
about your privacy, please contact the Privacy Officer on 02 6141 6666 or
via e-mail [email address].
If you have received this email in error, please notify us immediately by
return email and delete all copies. If this email or any attachments have
been sent to you in error, that error does not constitute waiver of any
confidentiality, privilege or copyright in respect of information in the
email or attachments.
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[AGD request email]
2. mailto:[AGD request email]
OFFICIALOFFICIAL
Dear Waldek
I am writing in reference to Freedom of Information requests FOI23/463 and
FOI23/500 to inform you that I am the caseworker who is now responsible
for processing these requests. I apologise for the delay experienced to
date but can confirm that the Attorney-General’s Department (the
department) is working to finalise these requests as soon as possible.
I note that on 4 October 2023, the department wrote to you at
[1][FOI #10637 email] to confirm that on 15
September 2023, the department accepted transfer of FOI request
AGOFOI23/463 from the Attorney-General’s Office. This request on transfer
from the Attorney-General’s Office to the department was issued with a new
FOI request number which is FOI23/500. Moving forward the department will
refer to this request as FOI23/500.
I have reviewed all the correspondence on file and consider that in both
FOI23/463 and FOI23/500 you are seeking access to:
….. any and all documents in your possession relating to the
Commonwealth's involvement in the false imprisonment of the applicant in
Stradford (a pseudonym) v Judge Vasta [2023] FCA 1020, including documents
setting out the cost to the Commonwealth of defending the matter.
If you disagree with this interpretation please let me know. I also
consider that valid requests for FOI23/463 and FOI23/500 were received on
30 August 2023. As both FOI23/463 and FOI23/500 are identical requests I
am writing to ask whether you would agree to withdraw one of the requests?
If so, I would appreciate your agreement to this in writing by responding
this email.
If you elect not to withdraw one of the requests, the department will
process both requests simultaneously by emailing
[2][FOI #10637 email] and
[3][email address] referencing both
reference numbers and will also provide you with a single decision letter
referencing both FOI23/463 and FOI23/500.
If you have any questions about this email please contact me at
[4][AGD request email] or by calling 02 6141 6666.
[Personal Information Redacted]
Freedom of Information and Privacy
Attorney-General’s Department
T: 02 6141 6666 | E: [5][AGD request email]
OFFICIAL
The Attorney-General’s Department may collect your personal information
where it is reasonably necessary for, or directly related to, our
functions, including those under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI
Act) and the Privacy Act 1988. We may collect your name, email address and
telephone number so that we can contact you about your request or privacy
complaint. If your request concerns accessing or correcting your personal
information, we will collect the minimum amount of evidence necessary to
verify your identity. We hold personal information in accordance with the
Privacy Act and our privacy policy. If you have an enquiry or complaint
about your privacy, please contact the Privacy Officer on 02 6141 6666 or
via e-mail [email address].
If you have received this email in error, please notify us immediately by
return email and delete all copies. If this email or any attachments have
been sent to you in error, that error does not constitute waiver of any
confidentiality, privilege or copyright in respect of information in the
email or attachments.
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[FOI #10637 email]
2. mailto:[FOI #10637 email]
3. mailto:[email address]
4. mailto:[AGD request email]
5. mailto:[AGD request email]
OFFICIAL
Dear Applicant
I write further to our correspondence of 8 December 2023 and 14 December
2023 in relation to FOI requests FOI23/463 and FOI23/500, which are now
subject to Information Commission (IC) reviews. As outlined in our
correspondence of 8 December 2023, requests FOI23/463 and FOI23/500 are
identical requests and the department as such invites you to withdraw one
of these requests.
On 14 December 2023 we also wrote to you via the Right to Know contact
page [1]https://www.righttoknow.org.au/user/cont...
inviting you to email us directly to engage on your requests.
We have not received a response from you to this earlier correspondence.
We are writing to you now to confirm that after searching the department’s
holdings, the department has identified 176 documents, totalling over 3500
pages that are captured by the terms of your request. The department views
that processing these documents for your request in its current form
(current scope) would constitute a substantial and unreasonable diversion
of resources. Under the FOI Act, this is known as a practical refusal
reason. Under section 24 of the FOI Act, an access request may be refused
if a practical refusal reason exists. Where the department is of the view
that a practical refusal reasons exists we will engage in a request
consultation process with the applicant to request that the applicant
revises the scope of their request. The aim of this process is to remove
the practical refusal reason so the request can continue to be processed
by the department. Before we undertake the request consultation process,
the department requests that you respond as promptly as possible to this
message so we can identify the documents of interest to you and to confirm
you wish to proceed with these IC reviews.
Thank you
[Personal Information Redacted]
Freedom of Information and Privacy
Attorney-General’s Department
T: 02 6141 6666 | E: [2][AGD request email]
OFFICIAL
The Attorney-General’s Department may collect your personal information
where it is reasonably necessary for, or directly related to, our
functions, including those under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI
Act) and the Privacy Act 1988. We may collect your name, email address and
telephone number so that we can contact you about your request or privacy
complaint. If your request concerns accessing or correcting your personal
information, we will collect the minimum amount of evidence necessary to
verify your identity. We hold personal information in accordance with the
Privacy Act and our privacy policy. If you have an enquiry or complaint
about your privacy, please contact the Privacy Officer on 02 6141 6666 or
via e-mail [email address].
If you have received this email in error, please notify us immediately by
return email and delete all copies. If this email or any attachments have
been sent to you in error, that error does not constitute waiver of any
confidentiality, privilege or copyright in respect of information in the
email or attachments.
References
Visible links
1. https://www.righttoknow.org.au/user/cont...
2. mailto:[AGD request email]
Dear [Personal Information Redacted],
In your email you have noted that you write to me in in furtherance of correspondence you sent on 8 December 2023 and 14 December 2023.
You stated:
“I write further to our correspondence of 8 December 2023 and 14 December 2023 in relation to FOI requests FOI23/463 and FOI23/500, which are now subject to Information Commission (IC) reviews. As outlined in our correspondence of 8 December 2023, requests FOI23/463 and FOI23/500 are identical requests and the department as such invites you to withdraw one
of these requests.
On 14 December 2023 we also wrote to you via the Right to Know contact page [1]https://www.righttoknow.org.au/user/cont... inviting you to email us directly to engage on your requests.
We have not received a response from you to this earlier correspondence.”
I will address your claims about the correspondence that you claim to have sent me on 8 December 2023 and 14 December 2023.
8 December 2023 correspondence
In your correspondence of 8 December 2023, you stated:
“I also consider that valid requests for FOI23/463 and FOI23/500 were received on 30 August 2023. As both FOI23/463 and FOI23/500 are identical requests I am writing to ask whether you would agree to withdraw one of the requests?
If so, I would appreciate your agreement to this in writing by responding this email.”
You further noted, “If you elect not to withdraw one of the requests, the department will process both requests simultaneously by … referencing both reference numbers and will also provide you with a single decision letter referencing both FOI23/463 and FOI23/500.”
You requested that, if I agreed to withdraw one of the requests, I respond to your email. You did not receive a response from me. Since it was not “so”, the natural conclusion to be drawn is that I have not agreed to withdraw one of the requests.
14 December 2023 correspondence
I have not received any correspondence from the AGD dated 14 December 2023. Any correspondence that you send to me should appear publicly on this website. As you can see, there is nothing published on this website. Therefore, you have failed to draw whatever correspondence you claim to have sent on 14 December 2023 to my attention.
All correspondence should be sent to me at the email address that was set out in my email of 30 August 2023.
Claim about a practical refusal decision
You can try to claim that a practical refusal ground exists but you will not succeed. It seems to me that you have not carefully read the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth). Nor does it appear that you are familiar with the authorities and case law. If you were, you’d realise that such a decision would be beyond power.
You don’t actually think that a deemed refusal decision is without serious and binding legal consequences? Agencies don’t get to ignore the dictates of the FOI Act only to try to hide behind a practical refusal ground when it isn’t available to them under the law.
There is also the matter of your colleague [Personal Information Redacted] already having identified the documents within scope of my request in early October 2023, and having already engaged in consultation processes with a third party about the documents. The evidence suggests that the substantive work of processing my request has already been taken care of, which does beg the question how it is possible that your claim that there is a practical refusal ground has any merit.
It seems that the AGD has gone from claiming that “the Commonwealth was not involved in the false imprisonment of the applicant during the relevant family law proceedings” (see https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s...) to claiming that it has so many documents relating to the false imprisonment of the applicant in Stradford (a pseudonym) v Judge Vasta [2023] FCA 1020 that it wants to claim that it will bring the operations of the entire agency to a halt to process a request for access to the documents relating to that false imprisonment. Quite an about face.
It boggles the mind that the AGD would be sitting on so large a trove of documents that relate to the false imprisonment of an Australian citizen by the Commonwealth. Have you prepared a list of the 176 documents that you can provide me with? I’d like to see what I can get my hands on.
Yours sincerely,
Waldek
Thank you for contacting the Freedom of Information (FOI) team at the
Attorney-General’s Department (the department). We get a high volume of
emails and FOI applications and work to respond as promptly as possible.
This email acknowledges your correspondence and provides some general
information in relation to FOI.
Please note that we will only respond to emails about the Freedom of
Information Act 1982 (the FOI Act). For information on how to make a
request under the FOI Act please refer to:
https://www.ag.gov.au/rights-and-protect....
For enquiries about other matters, please refer to:
https://www.ag.gov.au/about-us/connect-u...
The statutory processing time for FOI requests is 30 days, however this
may be extended if the department needs to consult third parties or for
other reasons. If you have submitted an FOI request, the department will
write to you again within 30 days of receiving your request. This
correspondence may:
* seek further information from you to help us process your request,
* provide you with a decision on your FOI request, or
* discuss whether an extension of time is needed to process your request.
Please do not send duplicate emails as this may cause delays to processing
times.
This FOI inbox is monitored business hours Monday to Friday, excluding
public holidays and the period from 23 December 2023 to 1 January 2024
inclusive. Your email will be responded to when staff resume their duties.
You can expect our team to provide a helpful, respectful service and we
expect respectful engagement in return.
Under s 89L of the FOI Act, disrespectful, threatening or abusive language
may be an abuse of the access action process. If this happens, we may not
be able to help you or we might take steps to manage how we communicate
with you.
If you have received this transmission in error please notify us
immediately by return e-mail and delete all copies. If this e-mail or any
attachments have been sent to you in error, that error does not constitute
waiver of any confidentiality, privilege or copyright in respect of
information in the e-mail or attachments.
If you have received this transmission in error please notify us
immediately by return e-mail and delete all copies. If this e-mail or any
attachments have been sent to you in error, that error does not constitute
waiver of any confidentiality, privilege or copyright in respect of
information in the e-mail or attachments.
OFFICIAL
Dear Applicant
Thank you for your correspondence that confirms you do not wish to
withdraw one of the duplicate FOI requests.
I can confirm the department is continuing to process these requests and
will contact you again shortly to provide you with further information
about the categories of documents falling with the scope of your results.
Kind regards
[Personal Information Redacted]
Freedom of Information and Privacy
Attorney-General’s Department
T: 02 6141 6666 | E: [1][AGD request email]
OFFICIAL
The Attorney-General’s Department may collect your personal information
where it is reasonably necessary for, or directly related to, our
functions, including those under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI
Act) and the Privacy Act 1988. We may collect your name, email address and
telephone number so that we can contact you about your request or privacy
complaint. If your request concerns accessing or correcting your personal
information, we will collect the minimum amount of evidence necessary to
verify your identity. We hold personal information in accordance with the
Privacy Act and our privacy policy. If you have an enquiry or complaint
about your privacy, please contact the Privacy Officer on 02 6141 6666 or
via e-mail [email address].
If you have received this email in error, please notify us immediately by
return email and delete all copies. If this email or any attachments have
been sent to you in error, that error does not constitute waiver of any
confidentiality, privilege or copyright in respect of information in the
email or attachments.
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[AGD request email]
OFFICIAL
Dear Applicant
Thank you for your correspondence that confirms you do not wish to
withdraw one of the duplicate FOI requests.
I can confirm the department is continuing to process these requests and
will contact you again shortly to provide you with further information
about the categories of documents falling with the scope of your results.
Kind regards
[Personal Information Redacted]
Freedom of Information and Privacy
Attorney-General’s Department
T: 02 6141 6666 | E: [1][AGD request email]
OFFICIAL
The Attorney-General’s Department may collect your personal information
where it is reasonably necessary for, or directly related to, our
functions, including those under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI
Act) and the Privacy Act 1988. We may collect your name, email address and
telephone number so that we can contact you about your request or privacy
complaint. If your request concerns accessing or correcting your personal
information, we will collect the minimum amount of evidence necessary to
verify your identity. We hold personal information in accordance with the
Privacy Act and our privacy policy. If you have an enquiry or complaint
about your privacy, please contact the Privacy Officer on 02 6141 6666 or
via e-mail [email address].
If you have received this email in error, please notify us immediately by
return email and delete all copies. If this email or any attachments have
been sent to you in error, that error does not constitute waiver of any
confidentiality, privilege or copyright in respect of information in the
email or attachments.
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[AGD request email]
Dear Waldek
I’m writing in relation to FOI request FOI23/463 and FOI23/500 to advise
that the department requires your assistance in clarifying our
understanding of the documents you are seeking access to. We’d therefore
be grateful if you could please respond to this email to confirm that you
are seeking access to:
1. Documents about the Commonwealth’s involvement, as a party, in the
false imprisonment claims made by the applicant in the Stradford (a
pseudonym) v Judge Vasta [2023] FCA 1020 case, and
2. Documents that set out the total cost to the Commonwealth in defending
the matter.
Your response to this question will greatly assist the department in being
able to finalise the requests as soon as possible. As per our previous
correspondence a large number of documents was initially identified as
falling within the scope of your request. This has impacted our ability to
process these requests in a timely manner. I can confirm that the
department has sought an extension of time from the Office of the
Australian Information Commissioner to the 6 March 2024.
The department seeks your response to this email by 1 February 2024.
Kind regards
[Personal Information Redacted]
Freedom of Information and Privacy
Attorney-General’s Department
T: 02 6141 6666 | E: [1][AGD request email]
The Attorney-General’s Department may collect your personal information
where it is reasonably necessary for, or directly related to, our
functions, including those under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI
Act) and the Privacy Act 1988. We may collect your name, email address and
telephone number so that we can contact you about your request or privacy
complaint. If your request concerns accessing or correcting your personal
information, we will collect the minimum amount of evidence necessary to
verify your identity. We hold personal information in accordance with the
Privacy Act and our privacy policy. If you have an enquiry or complaint
about your privacy, please contact the Privacy Officer on 02 6141 6666 or
via e-mail [email address].
If you have received this email in error, please notify us immediately by
return email and delete all copies. If this email or any attachments have
been sent to you in error, that error does not constitute waiver of any
confidentiality, privilege or copyright in respect of information in the
email or attachments.
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[AGD request email]
Dear Waldek
I’m writing in relation to FOI request FOI23/463 and FOI23/500 to advise
that the department requires your assistance in clarifying our
understanding of the documents you are seeking access to. We’d therefore
be grateful if you could please respond to this email to confirm that you
are seeking access to:
1. Documents about the Commonwealth’s involvement, as a party, in the
false imprisonment claims made by the applicant in the Stradford (a
pseudonym) v Judge Vasta [2023] FCA 1020 case, and
2. Documents that set out the total cost to the Commonwealth in defending
the matter.
Your response to this question will greatly assist the department in being
able to finalise the requests as soon as possible. As per our previous
correspondence a large number of documents was initially identified as
falling within the scope of your request. This has impacted our ability to
process these requests in a timely manner. I can confirm that the
department has sought an extension of time from the Office of the
Australian Information Commissioner to the 6 March 2024.
The department seeks your response to this email by 1 February 2024.
Kind regards
[Personal Information Redacted]
Freedom of Information and Privacy
Attorney-General’s Department
T: 02 6141 6666 | E: [1][AGD request email]
The Attorney-General’s Department may collect your personal information
where it is reasonably necessary for, or directly related to, our
functions, including those under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI
Act) and the Privacy Act 1988. We may collect your name, email address and
telephone number so that we can contact you about your request or privacy
complaint. If your request concerns accessing or correcting your personal
information, we will collect the minimum amount of evidence necessary to
verify your identity. We hold personal information in accordance with the
Privacy Act and our privacy policy. If you have an enquiry or complaint
about your privacy, please contact the Privacy Officer on 02 6141 6666 or
via e-mail [email address].
If you have received this email in error, please notify us immediately by
return email and delete all copies. If this email or any attachments have
been sent to you in error, that error does not constitute waiver of any
confidentiality, privilege or copyright in respect of information in the
email or attachments.
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[AGD request email]
Dear [Personal Information Redacted],
I submitted my FOI request more than five months ago.
I don’t understand why you have sent me an email claiming that the AGD requires my assistance in clarifying your understanding of the documents I am seeking access to when you or your colleagues have already stated that:
1. “after searching the department’s holdings, the department has identified 176 documents, totalling over 3500 pages that are captured by the terms of your request”: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s...
2. the AGD entered into third party consultation processes in respect of the documents identified: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s....
If officials were able to identify 176 documents falling within the scope of my request and entered into third party consultations in respect of those documents, then it follows that nobody in the AGD had any problems understanding the meaning of my FOI request. In fact, you promised, in your email of 22 January 2024, to contact me to provide me “with further information about the categories of documents falling with the scope of” my requests. Not only have you yet to do that, but contacting me to provide me “with further information about the categories of documents falling with the scope of” my requests demonstrates that you have had no problem whatsoever understanding my FOI request. It is, after all, as clear as day.
Your email of 25 January 2024, in which you now claim that officials in the AGD require me to clarify my request seems to me to be nothing more than another parlour trick to delay processing my request. This is not the first such trick. Your colleague [Personal Information Redacted] tried the very same thing on 1 September 2023 when she attempted to read words into my request: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s.... I firmly rejected her attempts to do so: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s....
In the same vein, I reject your attempts to read words into my request.
In your email of 25 January 2024, you asked me to confirm whether my request was for access to “Documents about the Commonwealth’s involvement, as a party, in the false imprisonment claims made by the applicant in the Stradford (a pseudonym) v Judge Vasta [2023] FCA 1020 case”.
No – my access request is not for documents about the Commonwealth’s involvement, as a party, in the false imprisonment claims made by the applicant in the Stradford (a pseudonym) v Judge Vasta [2023] FCA 1020 case. I have not limited my request to document about the Commonwealth’s involvement AS A PARTY to the false imprisonment claims MADE BY THE APPLICANT in the Stradford (a pseudonym) v Judge Vasta [2023] FCA 1020 case. If I wanted to limit my request to document about the Commonwealth’s involvement AS A PARTY to the false imprisonment CLAIMS MADE BY THE APPLICANT in the Stradford (a pseudonym) v Judge Vasta [2023] FCA 1020 case, I would have inspected the applicant’s PLEADINGS to first determine what claims the applicant made in respect of the Commonwealth’s involvement in his false imprisonment, and thus limited my request to what the applicant actually claimed in his pleadings.
My request was for any and all documents relating to the Commonwealth's involvement in the false imprisonment of the applicant in Stradford (a pseudonym) v Judge Vasta [2023] FCA 1020. It is either coextensive with what you have suggested or broader, but is not limited to that coextensive scope.
As I said to your colleague [Personal Information Redacted] on 2 September 2023, please do not read words into my request that are not there. As I said to your colleague [Personal Information Redacted] on 2 September 2023, please do not limit the scope of my request with words that are not there. As I said to your colleague on 2 September 2023, please give my FOI request the natural, reasonable and ample meaning that a reasonable speaker of the English language would give that request: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s....
There has been neither rhyme nor rhythm to the correspondence I have received from the AGD over the last five months. To recap:
1. Your colleague [Personal Information Redacted] claimed, on 31 August 2023, that “the Commonwealth was not involved in the false imprisonment of the applicant during the relevant family law proceedings … because the Australian system of government is based on a separation of powers between the Legislature (the Parliament), the Executive (the Government), and the Judiciary (the Courts)”: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s...
2. Your colleague [Personal Information Redacted] claimed, on 31 August 2023, in the light of her amateurish attempts to educate me on Australian constitutionalism, that I needed to clarify my request: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s...
3. Your colleague [Personal Information Redacted] claimed, on 1 September 2023, that I had provided additional context in support of my request (https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s...), which I refuted: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s...
4. Your colleague [Personal Information Redacted] claimed, on 7 September 2023, that I had made my FOI requests on 4 September 2023, when it is plain for everybody to see that I made my requests on 30 August 2023: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s...
5. You acknowledged, on 8 December 2023, that the AGD received valid FOI requests on 30 August 2023, contrary to [Personal Information Redacted]’s false claims: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s...
6. Your colleague [Personal Information Redacted] claimed, on 4 October 2023, that the period for processing my request “has been extended by 30 days to allow the department to undertake consultation with a third party”: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s...
7. On 21 December 2023, you claimed that you had written to me on 14 December 2023, although it is clear that no such correspondence was sent to the email address with which the AGD was provided in respect of my FOI request: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s...
8. On 21 December 2023, you claimed that the AGD proposed to raise enter into a formal consultation process with me on practical refusal grounds (https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s...), a point that I cut down to size on 23 December 2023: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s...
9. Despite identifying the documents within the scope of my request, conducting third party consultations, raising the spectre of a practical refusal decision – all of which presuppose a perfectly clear FOI request capable of being understood by officials in the AGD – you now claim that you need assistance “clarifying” the scope of my request: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s....
Please stop wasting my time with silly delay tactics. Please just process my FOI request according to law.
Shame on the AGD for its mishandling of my FOI request. The mishandling of my FOI request demonstrates just how “committed” the Attorney-General’s officials are to complying with an item of legislation that he is responsible for administering: www.legislation.gov.au/C2022Q00008/ - see Part 2 of the Governor-General’s Administrative Arrangements Order.
To be clear, my FOI request extends to any and all documents setting out the cost to the Commonwealth of defending the matter in Stradford (a pseudonym) v Judge Vasta [2023] FCA 1020, as it has from 30 August 2023.
Yours sincerely,
Waldek
Thank you for contacting the Freedom of Information (FOI) team at the
Attorney-General’s Department (the department). We get a high volume of
emails and FOI applications and work to respond as promptly as possible.
This email acknowledges your correspondence and provides some general
information in relation to FOI.
Please note that we will only respond to emails about the Freedom of
Information Act 1982 (the FOI Act). For information on how to make a
request under the FOI Act please refer to:
https://www.ag.gov.au/rights-and-protect....
For enquiries about other matters, please refer to:
https://www.ag.gov.au/about-us/connect-u...
The statutory processing time for FOI requests is 30 days, however this
may be extended if the department needs to consult third parties or for
other reasons. If you have submitted an FOI request, the department will
write to you again within 30 days of receiving your request. This
correspondence may:
* seek further information from you to help us process your request,
* provide you with a decision on your FOI request, or
* discuss whether an extension of time is needed to process your request.
Please do not send duplicate emails as this may cause delays to processing
times.
This FOI inbox is monitored business hours Monday to Friday, excluding
public holidays.
You can expect our team to provide a helpful, respectful service and we
expect respectful engagement in return.
Under s 89L of the FOI Act, disrespectful, threatening or abusive language
may be an abuse of the access action process. If this happens, we may not
be able to help you or we might take steps to manage how we communicate
with you.
If you have received this transmission in error please notify us
immediately by return e-mail and delete all copies. If this e-mail or any
attachments have been sent to you in error, that error does not constitute
waiver of any confidentiality, privilege or copyright in respect of
information in the e-mail or attachments.
If you have received this transmission in error please notify us
immediately by return e-mail and delete all copies. If this e-mail or any
attachments have been sent to you in error, that error does not constitute
waiver of any confidentiality, privilege or copyright in respect of
information in the e-mail or attachments.
OFFICIAL
Dear Waldek
I am writing further to FOI request FOI23/463 and FOI23/500 which as you
know are duplicate requests and the department is processing
simultaneously. The purpose of this email is to confirm that processing of
your request has progressed but is not yet finalised. I note you have
declined to narrow the scope of the request. Due to the voluminous nature
of the request, processing of the request is taking longer than usual. I
intend to provide you with fortnightly updates moving forward via the
Right to Know email address for FOI23/463 only. Correspondence for the
request will be processed against one email address given both requests
are identical and to assist both the department and the Information
Commissioner manage your reviews.
If at any time you would like to discuss your FOI request you are welcome
to call the number below. In this case please request to be transferred to
the Freedom of Information and Privacy Team and quote reference number
FOI23/463.
Kind regards
Freedom of Information and Privacy
Attorney-General’s Department
T: 02 6141 6666 | E: [1][AGD request email]
OFFICIAL
The Attorney-General’s Department may collect your personal information
where it is reasonably necessary for, or directly related to, our
functions, including those under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI
Act) and the Privacy Act 1988. We may collect your name, email address and
telephone number so that we can contact you about your request or privacy
complaint. If your request concerns accessing or correcting your personal
information, we will collect the minimum amount of evidence necessary to
verify your identity. We hold personal information in accordance with the
Privacy Act and our privacy policy. If you have an enquiry or complaint
about your privacy, please contact the Privacy Officer on 02 6141 6666 or
via e-mail [email address].
If you have received this email in error, please notify us immediately by
return email and delete all copies. If this email or any attachments have
been sent to you in error, that error does not constitute waiver of any
confidentiality, privilege or copyright in respect of information in the
email or attachments.
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[AGD request email]
OFFICIAL
Dear Waldek
I am writing further to FOI request FOI23/463 and FOI23/500 which as you
know are duplicate requests and the department is processing
simultaneously. The purpose of this email is to confirm that processing of
your request has progressed but is not yet finalised. I note you have
declined to narrow the scope of the request. Due to the voluminous nature
of the request, processing of the request is taking longer than usual. I
intend to provide you with fortnightly updates moving forward via the
Right to Know email address for FOI23/463 only. Correspondence for the
request will be processed against one email address given both requests
are identical and to assist both the department and the Information
Commissioner manage your reviews.
If at any time you would like to discuss your FOI request you are welcome
to call the number below. In this case please request to be transferred to
the Freedom of Information and Privacy Team and quote reference number
FOI23/463.
Kind regards
Freedom of Information and Privacy
Attorney-General’s Department
T: 02 6141 6666 | E: [1][AGD request email]
OFFICIAL
The Attorney-General’s Department may collect your personal information
where it is reasonably necessary for, or directly related to, our
functions, including those under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI
Act) and the Privacy Act 1988. We may collect your name, email address and
telephone number so that we can contact you about your request or privacy
complaint. If your request concerns accessing or correcting your personal
information, we will collect the minimum amount of evidence necessary to
verify your identity. We hold personal information in accordance with the
Privacy Act and our privacy policy. If you have an enquiry or complaint
about your privacy, please contact the Privacy Officer on 02 6141 6666 or
via e-mail [email address].
If you have received this email in error, please notify us immediately by
return email and delete all copies. If this email or any attachments have
been sent to you in error, that error does not constitute waiver of any
confidentiality, privilege or copyright in respect of information in the
email or attachments.
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[AGD request email]
[Personal Information Redacted],
The way that my FOI request has been processed to date is disgraceful. Please pass this email to your supervisor for consideration and response.
It has been more than half a year since I applied for access to documents. The same pathetic excuses have been advanced time after time by you and your colleagues. When will I be provided with the documents that I requested? When will I be provided with cogent reasons for decision? Why has it taken more than half a year to process my FOI request? Despite promising to do so on 22 January 2024, why have you not yet provided me with information about the categories of documents falling within the scope of my request? Despite [Personal Information Redacted] conducting third party consultations for the purposes of my FOI request in October 2023, why have you not finished processing my FOI request (spare me the nonsense about the matter being voluminous - you've had more than half a year to deal with this FOI request)?
Yours sincerely,
Waldek
[Personal Information Redacted],
Despite promising to do so on 22 January 2024, why have you not yet provided me with information about the categories of documents falling within the scope of my request? When will you provide me with the promised information?
I'd appreciate it if you would refrain from making passive-aggressive comments like this:
"I am writing further to FOI request FOI23/463 and FOI23/500 which as you know are duplicate requests and the department is processing simultaneously. The purpose of this email is to confirm that processing of your request has progressed but is not yet finalised. I note you have declined to narrow the scope of the request. Due to the voluminous nature of the request, processing of the request is taking longer than usual."
Please do not pretend like you are doing me a big favour. If anybody is entitled to make passive-aggressive comments, I am given the hopeless way in which you and your colleagues have handled my FOI request from the first day. Do I need to remind you about [Personal Information Redacted]'s duplicitous commentary?
Yours sincerely,
Waldek
[Personal Information Redacted],
I refer to my email of 7 March 2024. Today is 13 March 2024.
When can I expect to receive a response to my queries from your supervisor? It won't do you or your supervisor much good to ignore me.
Moreover, please do not think that you can dictate a timetable with respect to providing me with updates. Dictating that you will provide updates on a fortnightly basis, as you did in your correspondence of 6 March 2024, does not mean that you have based your dictate on law. You've just chosen an arbitrary timeframe.
I will not be dictated to by public servants who seem to think that the laws of Australia do not apply to them.
Yours sincerely,
Waldek
Dear Waldek
I write in response to your messages posted on the Right to Know website
on 8 and 13 March 2024 which pertain to FOI requests FOI23/463 and
FOI23/500 made to the Attorney-General’s Department (the department). You
have requested an update on processing times for these FOI requests, and
have also requested that the correspondence is referred to a supervisor.
I am the Director of the Freedom of Information and Privacy section, and
have reviewed the correspondence in this matter. I confirm the advice
provided by the case officer – the department is working to finalise these
requests by 27 March 2024. As you are well aware, the voluminous nature of
this request has necessitated extensions of time. If further time is
required in order to process your request appropriately we will continue
to keep you informed.
Please note, in my view, elements of your correspondence may be construed
as harassing and intimidatory towards departmental officers. I encourage
you to consider the ‘[1]House Rules’ on the Right To Know website when you
correspond with the department.
If your correspondence continues to include harassing or intimidatory
language, we may take steps to manage how we communicate with you, or be
unable to assist further with your request. Should you wish to discuss
this further, please do not hesitate to contact me at [2][AGD request email].
Kind regards,
Jess
Director
Freedom of Information and Privacy, Strategy and Governance Branch
The Attorney-General’s Department may collect your personal information
where it is reasonably necessary for, or directly related to, our
functions, including those under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI
Act) and the Privacy Act 1988. We may collect your name, email address and
telephone number so that we can contact you about your request or privacy
complaint. If your request concerns accessing or correcting your personal
information, we will collect the minimum amount of evidence necessary to
verify your identity. We hold personal information in accordance with the
Privacy Act and our privacy policy. If you have an enquiry or complaint
about your privacy, please contact the Privacy Officer on 02 6141 6666 or
via e-mail [email address].
If you have received this email in error, please notify us immediately by
return email and delete all copies. If this email or any attachments have
been sent to you in error, that error does not constitute waiver of any
confidentiality, privilege or copyright in respect of information in the
email or attachments.
References
Visible links
1. file:///tmp/House%20rules%20-%20Right%20to%20Know
2. mailto:[AGD request email]
OFFICIAL
Dear Waldek
Freedom of Information Request FOI23/463 and FOI23/500
I refer to your requests to the Attorney-General's Department (the
department) under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act) for access
to documents.
The purpose of this email is to provide you with a decision in response to
those requests.
Please find attached:
o decision letter, including:
o schedule of documents,
o statement of reasons, and
o documents.
If you have any questions, please contact us telephone on (02) 6141 6666
or by email to [1][AGD request email].
Freedom of Information and Privacy
Attorney-General’s Department
T: 02 6141 6666 | E: [2][AGD request email]
OFFICIAL
The Attorney-General’s Department may collect your personal information
where it is reasonably necessary for, or directly related to, our
functions, including those under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI
Act) and the Privacy Act 1988. We may collect your name, email address and
telephone number so that we can contact you about your request or privacy
complaint. If your request concerns accessing or correcting your personal
information, we will collect the minimum amount of evidence necessary to
verify your identity. We hold personal information in accordance with the
Privacy Act and our privacy policy. If you have an enquiry or complaint
about your privacy, please contact the Privacy Officer on 02 6141 6666 or
via e-mail [email address].
If you have received this email in error, please notify us immediately by
return email and delete all copies. If this email or any attachments have
been sent to you in error, that error does not constitute waiver of any
confidentiality, privilege or copyright in respect of information in the
email or attachments.
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[AGD request email]
2. mailto:[AGD request email]
Dear Waldek
I write further to the Attorney-General’s Department’s correspondence of
27 March 2024. In that correspondence we noted that the department
intended to finalise tranche 2 of this decision by the 15 April 2024. I
can confirm that the tranche 2 decision is at the final stages of
clearance however it has not been possible to finalise it today. As a
result the department intends to finalise the decision by Wednesday 17
April 2024.
Kind regards
FOI Officer, Freedom of Information and Privacy
Attorney-General’s Department
T: 02 6141 6666 | E: [1][AGD request email]
The Attorney-General’s Department may collect your personal information
where it is reasonably necessary for, or directly related to, our
functions, including those under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI
Act) and the Privacy Act 1988. We may collect your name, email address and
telephone number so that we can contact you about your request or privacy
complaint. If your request concerns accessing or correcting your personal
information, we will collect the minimum amount of evidence necessary to
verify your identity. We hold personal information in accordance with the
Privacy Act and our privacy policy. If you have an enquiry or complaint
about your privacy, please contact the Privacy Officer on 02 6141 6666 or
via e-mail [email address].
If you have received this email in error, please notify us immediately by
return email and delete all copies. If this email or any attachments have
been sent to you in error, that error does not constitute waiver of any
confidentiality, privilege or copyright in respect of information in the
email or attachments.
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[AGD request email]
OFFICIAL
Dear Waldek
Freedom of Information Request FOI23/463 and FOI23/500
I refer to your requests to the Attorney-General's Department (the
department) under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act) for access
to documents.
The purpose of this email is to provide you with a decision (tranche 2) in
response to those requests.
Please find attached:
o Tranche 2 decision including:
o Attachment A - copy of tranche 1 access decision
o Attachment B - schedule of documents, and
o Attachment C - statement of reasons.
If you have any questions, please contact me by us on (02) 6141 6666 or by
email to [1][AGD request email].
Kind regards
Freedom of Information and Privacy Team
Attorney-General’s Department
T: 02 6141 6666 | E: [2][AGD request email]
OFFICIAL
The Attorney-General’s Department may collect your personal information
where it is reasonably necessary for, or directly related to, our
functions, including those under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI
Act) and the Privacy Act 1988. We may collect your name, email address and
telephone number so that we can contact you about your request or privacy
complaint. If your request concerns accessing or correcting your personal
information, we will collect the minimum amount of evidence necessary to
verify your identity. We hold personal information in accordance with the
Privacy Act and our privacy policy. If you have an enquiry or complaint
about your privacy, please contact the Privacy Officer on 02 6141 6666 or
via e-mail [email address].
If you have received this email in error, please notify us immediately by
return email and delete all copies. If this email or any attachments have
been sent to you in error, that error does not constitute waiver of any
confidentiality, privilege or copyright in respect of information in the
email or attachments.
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[AGD request email]
2. mailto:[AGD request email]
Waldek left an annotation ()
Reasons for continuing with IC review application:
https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s...
Our reference: MR23/01375
Agency reference: FOI23/500
Waldek Lupinski
By email: [1][FOI #10637 email]
Attorney-General's Department
By email: [2][AGD request email]
Waldek Lupinski IC review application about the Attorney-General's
Department
Good afternoon,
It has been brought to our attention that we closed this case in error.
Please refer to the attached email where we advised all parties that the
case had been closed.
Upon review, we located the email where the IC review applicant, Waldek
Lupinski, confirmed to proceed with this review.
We have now reinstated this case as an active case and will proceed with
the review. You will both hear from us in due course.
Apologies for any inconvenience casued.
If you require assistance regarding this email, please contact us at
[3][email address].
Please quote the reference MR23/01375 in all correspondence.
Kind regards,
[4][IMG] Sussan J
Review Adviser
Office of the Australian Information Commissioner
GPO Box 5288 Sydney NSW 2001
P: 1300 363 992 E: [5][email address]
The OAIC acknowledges Traditional Custodians of Country across
Australia and their continuing connection to land, waters and
communities. We pay our respect to First Nations people,
cultures and Elders past and present.
[6]Subscribe to Information Matters
Notice:
The information contained in this email message and any attached files may
be confidential information, and may also be the subject of legal
professional privilege. If you are not the intended recipient any use,
disclosure or copying of this email is unauthorised. If you received this
email in error, please notify the sender by contacting the department's
switchboard on 1300 488 064 during business hours (8:30am - 5pm Canberra
time) and delete all copies of this transmission together with any
attachments.
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[FOI #10637 email]
2. mailto:[AGD request email]
3. mailto:[email address]
4. https://www.oaic.gov.au/
5. mailto:[email address]
6. https://www.oaic.gov.au/engage-with-us/n...
Our Reference: MR23/01375
Agency’s Reference: FOI 23/500
Waldek Lupinski
By email: [1][FOI #10637 email]
Duplicate IC review application regarding decision by the Attorney
General’s Department
Dear Mr Lupinski,
We are writing to you regarding your IC review application which has been
assigned the OAIC reference number MR23/01375.
This application relates to the decision made by the Attorney General’s
Department – Agency Reference FOI 23/500.
It appears that there are currently two IC reviews registered in relation
to the same decision:
1. MR23/01375 (this file); and
2. MR23/01376.
From review of both files, the file MR23/01376 has progressed
significantly more compared to this file (MR23/01375).
In the interest of continuing to progress MR23/01376, would you kindly
reply to this email and confirm you wish to withdraw this file,
MR23/01375.
If we do not receive a response from you by close of business on Friday,
24 May 2024, this application will be declined under s 54W(a)(i) or 54W(c)
of the FOI Act.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at this
email address.
Kind regards,
[2][IMG] Omid Azizi
Assistant Review Adviser
Freedom of Information Branch
Office of the Australian Information Commissioner
Sydney | GPO Box 5288 Sydney NSW 2001
P 1300 363 992 E [3][email address]
The OAIC acknowledges Traditional Custodians of Country across
Australia and their continuing connection to land, waters and
communities. We pay our respect to First Nations people,
cultures and Elders past and present.
[4]Subscribe to Information Matters
Notice:
The information contained in this email message and any attached files may
be confidential information, and may also be the subject of legal
professional privilege. If you are not the intended recipient any use,
disclosure or copying of this email is unauthorised. If you received this
email in error, please notify the sender by contacting the department's
switchboard on 1300 488 064 during business hours (8:30am - 5pm Canberra
time) and delete all copies of this transmission together with any
attachments.
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[FOI #10637 email]
2. https://www.oaic.gov.au/
3. mailto:[email address]
4. https://www.oaic.gov.au/engage-with-us/n...
Dear Mr Azizi,
I would like for my FOI request to the Attorney-General (which is distinct from my request to the Attorney-General’s Department) to travel together with my FOI request to the Attorney-General’s Department.
To be clear, the reference for my FOI request to the Attorney-General is MR23/01375, with and internal reference of AGOFOI23/463 (which, upon being “transferred” to the AGD, was given an internal reference of FOI23/500).
My reasons are as follows.
First, it is not clear whether the request that I made to the Attorney-General was transferred to the Attorney-General’s Department according to law. On 4 October 2023, an official in the AGD wrote to be and noted that the Attorney-General’s office transferred my request to the AGD “pursuant to s 16 of the FOI Act, on the grounds that the subject matter of the request was more closely connected with the functions of the department than the office.”
The mere fact that the request was more closely connected with thte functions of the AGD is not enough to transfer the request according to law (Bienstein v Attorney-General [2007] FCA 1174, [38]-[39]).
The AG must first determine whether or not he actually has the documents in question before transferring the request (Bienstein v Attorney-General [2007] FCA 1174, [38]). Failing to do so gives rise to an error of law (Bienstein v Attorney-General [2007] FCA 1174, [39]).
Second, in the light of Justice Charlesworth’s judgment in Patrick v Attorney-General (Cth) [2004] FCA 268, and the judgment in Bienstein, it would be open to me to question the lawfulness of the “decision” to “transfer” my request to the AG.
I would like to keep my options open, particularly because I may actually challenge the decision to transfer my request to the AG. Therefore, my IC review request for MR23/01375 should remain on foot, along with my IC review request MR23/01376, which is in respect of the refusal decision deemed to have been made by the Secretary of the AGD.
If MR23/01376 is lawfully processed, I may request a discontinuance of MR23/01375, but that remains to be seen.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Yours sincerely,
Waldek
Our reference: MR23/01376 and MR23/01375
Agency reference: AGOFOI23/465, FOI23/500 and FOI23/463
By email: [1][FOI #10637 email]
Information Commissioner review application about the Attorney-General’s
Office and the Attorney-General’s Department
Dear Waldek Lupinski,
I refer to the application for Information Commissioner review (IC review)
of related decisions made by the Attorney-General's Department and the
Office of the Attorney-General under the Freedom of Information Act 1982
(Cth) (the FOI Act).
After further review of the IC review application, I note that:
* On 30 August 2023, an FOI request was made via the nominated Right to
Know (RTK) electronic address
‘[FOI #10637 email]’. Various correspondence
was exchanged between the applicant and the Attorney-General's
Department via the nominated RTK electronic address.
1. On 14 November 2023, the Office of the Australian Information
Commissioner (OAIC) received two IC review applications which provided
the contact email address of
‘[FOI #10637 email]’.
At this time, the OAIC does not have sufficient evidence to be satisfied
that you were the FOI applicant and, therefore, that you had a right to
apply for IC review.
Action required by you before: 12 June 2024
Section 54L(3) of the FOI Act provides that an Information Commissioner
review (IC review) application may be made by, or on behalf of, the person
who made the request to which the decision relates.
As such, if you wish to proceed with this IC review, please provide a copy
of any notification emails sent by the Right to Know website’s
administrator about the FOI request or a screenshot of the ‘My requests’
page of your account on the Right to Know website (after you log into your
Right to Know account) showing the FOI request in question. You may also
upload this correspondence to the request on Right to Know and provide us
with confirmation of this.
Discretion not to continue to undertake an IC review
Under s 54W(c) of the FOI Act, the Information Commissioner may decide not
to continue to undertake a review if an applicant fails to comply with a
[2]direction of the Information Commissioner. [1.3]
The Direction as to certain procedures to be followed by applicants in
Information Commissioner reviews, issued by the Australian Information
Commissioner under s 55(2)(e)(i), states:
* An application for IC review may be made by, or on behalf of, the person
who made the request to which decision relates (s 54L(3)). The OAIC may
require information about the applicant’s identity to establish that
they are the person who made the original FOI request or evidence that a
third party is authorised to seek review of the decision by that person.
[1.15]
1. The Information Commissioner may decide not to undertake an IC review,
or not continue to undertake an IC review, where an IC review
applicant has failed to cooperate in progressing the IC review
application or the IC review without reasonable excuse (s 54W(a)(ii)).
[1.24]
2. Applicants must respond to enquiries from the OAIC within the period
provided unless there are circumstances warranting a longer period to
respond. Applicants who are satisfied with the decision and do not
wish to proceed with the IC review must advise the OAIC in writing.
Applicants who are not satisfied with the Agency or Minister’s
decision must explain why they disagree with the decision and the
basis on which they wish to proceed with the IC review. [1.22] and
[1.33]
If you do not provide the information requested by 14 June 2024, the OAIC
will finalise this matter on the basis that we are not satisfied the IC
review application has been made by, or on behalf of, the person who made
the FOI request.
Assistance
If you are unable to respond by 14 June 2024, you must request more time
at the earliest opportunity and no later than 7 June 2024. Requests for
more time must explain why you need more time, and you must propose a new
date to provide your response.
If you require assistance regarding this email, please contact us at
[3][email address].
Please quote the reference MR23/01376 and MR23/01375in all correspondence.
Kind regards,
[4][IMG] Claire Lynch (she/her)
Assistant Review Adviser
Freedom of Information Branch
Office of the Australian Information Commissioner
Sydney | GPO Box 5288 Sydney NSW 2001
P 1300 363 992 E [5][email address]
The OAIC acknowledges Traditional Custodians of Country across
Australia and their continuing connection to land, waters and
communities. We pay our respect to First Nations people, cultures and
Elders past and present.
[6]Subscribe to Information Matters
Notice:
The information contained in this email message and any attached files may
be confidential information, and may also be the subject of legal
professional privilege. If you are not the intended recipient any use,
disclosure or copying of this email is unauthorised. If you received this
email in error, please notify the sender by contacting the department's
switchboard on 1300 488 064 during business hours (8:30am - 5pm Canberra
time) and delete all copies of this transmission together with any
attachments.
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[FOI #10637 email]
2. https://www.oaic.gov.au/engage-with-us/c...
3. mailto:[email address]
4. https://www.oaic.gov.au/
5. mailto:[email address]
6. https://www.oaic.gov.au/engage-with-us/n...
Our reference: MR23/01376 and MR23/01375
Agency reference: AGOFOI23/465, FOI23/500 and FOI23/463
Dear Ms Lynch,
I refer to your email of 31 May 2024. I do not understand the basis of your request.
In your email you stated:
"After further review of the IC review application, I note that:
* On 30 August 2023, an FOI request was made via the nominated Right to
Know (RTK) electronic address
‘[FOI #10637 email]’. Various correspondence
was exchanged between the applicant and the Attorney-General's
Department via the nominated RTK electronic address.
1. On 14 November 2023, the Office of the Australian Information
Commissioner (OAIC) received two IC review applications which provided
the contact email address of
‘[FOI #10637 email]’.
At this time, the OAIC does not have sufficient evidence to be satisfied
that you were the FOI applicant and, therefore, that you had a right to
apply for IC review."
How could the OAIC not have sufficient evidence to be satisfied that I was the FOI applicant?
In order to make an FOI application on this website, a person needs to signup with a unique login and password. Only after logging in can a person submit an FOI request. Once the FOI request has been made using that unique login, then only the person with that login (and the administrator of this site) can engage in correspondence with authorities in respect of that unique request. As you can see, I, Waldek, am corresponding with you having logged in using my username and password.
You also request that I upload a screenshot of my requests. It is technically unfeasible to do that because "uploads" made to this website (e.g. FOI requests and correspondence) can only be in plain text format. That is to say that I cannot upload images, PDF documents or anything of the like to this website.
Your email is perplexing because, up until now, nobody at the OAIC has questioned whether I am the access applicant and, up until now, people at the OAIC have been corresponding with me via this website (e.g.: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s... https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s... https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s... https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s...).
Not even the AGD has gone so far as to challenge the fact that I made the FOI requests that I made.
I'm just taken aback by your email.
Would you mind explaining why you doubt that I did not submit the IC review request to the OAIC? Who would have? Are you operating under the misapprehension that everybody in the world has access to this page and can correspond with you, via this page, on Right to Know?
I'd appreciate a prompt response to my queries so that I can better understand where you are coming from. I would hate to think that the OAIC is setting up contrived obstacles so that people using Right to Know cannot seek IC review of decisions.
Yours sincerely,
Waldek
Waldek left an annotation ()
Following message sent to site administrators
"Dear site administrators ...
I recently received an email from Claire Lynch at the OAIC. It is a bizarre email. She appears to be questioning my having made the original FOI request to the AGD (or my request for IC review).
I was hoping that one of you might publicly note the fact that, having logged in with my unique user name and password, only I have access to the requests made as Waldek, and that any correspondence entered into with authorities is necessarily entered into by someone who uses that unique user name and password to access this website.
I am concerned, as you should be, that the OAIC may be attempting to limit, by setting up a contrived policy, the rights of those who make FOI requests using this website by questioning whether they in fact made the original FOI requests (it's a bit of a brain warper).
The email from Claire Lynch is here: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s...
Regards,
Waldek"
Ben Fairless left an annotation ()
This note is left on this request at the request of Waldek. The only person who can respond to emails about this request is the person who made the initial application - it's not possible for others to respond in this way.
If there are any concerns, the OAIC is welcome to reach out to the Right to Know administrators directly.
Thanks,
Ben Fairless
OpenAustralia Foundation
MR23/01376 and MR23/01375
Agency Reference: AGOFOI23/465, FOI23/500 and FOI23/463
Dear Ms Lynch,
I refer to your email of 31 May 2024 and my email in response of even date.
I note that a site administrator for this website, Ben Fairless, has posted a public notice about the manner in which FOI requests and subsequent correspondence is made on this website. The post can be accessed here: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s...
The site administrator has invited the OAIC to contact Right to Know if the OAIC has further questions about the manner in which this website operates (including in respect of users using unique user names and passwords to access this website to make FOI requests and send correspondence).
Would you please acknowledge receipt of my email of 31 May 2024 as soon as possible and also answer the questions posed in my email of 31 May 2024?
I do not want my IC review request finalised because officials in the OAIC are operating under a misapprehension about how this website operates or about my having submitted the original FOI request to the AGD.
I look forward to your prompt response.
Yours sincerely,
Waldek
Our reference: MR23/01376 and MR23/01375
Agency reference: AGOFOI23/465, FOI23/500 and FOI23/463
By email: [1][FOI #10637 email]
Information Commissioner review application about the Attorney-General’s
Office and the Attorney-General’s Department
Dear Waldek Lupinski,
I refer to my below correspondence and your recent attached responses.
After further review, I retract my previous request for further
documentation to demonstrate that you were the FOI applicant.
At the time of my previous email I had erroneously interpreted the email
you used to lodge the IC review application to be different from the right
to know address linked to the FOI request.
Thank you for your patience and I apologise for the oversight.
We will update you regarding your IC review process in due course.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us at
[2][email address].
Kind regards,
[3][IMG] Claire Lynch (she/her)
Assistant Review Adviser
Freedom of Information Branch
Office of the Australian Information Commissioner
Sydney | GPO Box 5288 Sydney NSW 2001
P 1300 363 992 E [4][email address]
Please note: The OAIC will be revising its IC review procedures
commencing 1 July 2024. For more information about these revised
procedures, including new resources to assist applicants and
respondents, see our webpage: [5]Upcoming changes to Information
Commissioner review procedure directions
The OAIC acknowledges Traditional Custodians of Country across Australia
and their continuing connection to land, waters and communities. We pay
our respect to First Nations people, cultures and Elders past and
present.
[6]Subscribe to Information Matters
From: OAIC - FOI DR
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2024 1:20 PM
To: Waldek <[FOI #10637 email]>
Subject: OAIC - Response due 14/06/24 - Information Commissioner review
application about the Attorney-General’s Office and the Attorney-General’s
Department
Our reference: MR23/01376 and MR23/01375
Agency reference: AGOFOI23/465, FOI23/500 and FOI23/463
By email: [7][FOI #10637 email]
Information Commissioner review application about the Attorney-General’s
Office and the Attorney-General’s Department
Dear Waldek Lupinski,
I refer to the application for Information Commissioner review (IC review)
of related decisions made by the Attorney-General's Department and the
Office of the Attorney-General under the Freedom of Information Act 1982
(Cth) (the FOI Act).
After further review of the IC review application, I note that:
* On 30 August 2023, an FOI request was made via the nominated Right to
Know (RTK) electronic address
‘[FOI #10637 email]’. Various correspondence
was exchanged between the applicant and the Attorney-General's
Department via the nominated RTK electronic address.
1. On 14 November 2023, the Office of the Australian Information
Commissioner (OAIC) received two IC review applications which provided
the contact email address of
‘[FOI #10637 email]’.
At this time, the OAIC does not have sufficient evidence to be satisfied
that you were the FOI applicant and, therefore, that you had a right to
apply for IC review.
Action required by you before: 12 June 2024
Section 54L(3) of the FOI Act provides that an Information Commissioner
review (IC review) application may be made by, or on behalf of, the person
who made the request to which the decision relates.
As such, if you wish to proceed with this IC review, please provide a copy
of any notification emails sent by the Right to Know website’s
administrator about the FOI request or a screenshot of the ‘My requests’
page of your account on the Right to Know website (after you log into your
Right to Know account) showing the FOI request in question. You may also
upload this correspondence to the request on Right to Know and provide us
with confirmation of this.
Discretion not to continue to undertake an IC review
Under s 54W(c) of the FOI Act, the Information Commissioner may decide not
to continue to undertake a review if an applicant fails to comply with a
[8]direction of the Information Commissioner. [1.3]
The Direction as to certain procedures to be followed by applicants in
Information Commissioner reviews, issued by the Australian Information
Commissioner under s 55(2)(e)(i), states:
* An application for IC review may be made by, or on behalf of, the person
who made the request to which decision relates (s 54L(3)). The OAIC may
require information about the applicant’s identity to establish that
they are the person who made the original FOI request or evidence that a
third party is authorised to seek review of the decision by that person.
[1.15]
1. The Information Commissioner may decide not to undertake an IC review,
or not continue to undertake an IC review, where an IC review
applicant has failed to cooperate in progressing the IC review
application or the IC review without reasonable excuse (s 54W(a)(ii)).
[1.24]
2. Applicants must respond to enquiries from the OAIC within the period
provided unless there are circumstances warranting a longer period to
respond. Applicants who are satisfied with the decision and do not
wish to proceed with the IC review must advise the OAIC in writing.
Applicants who are not satisfied with the Agency or Minister’s
decision must explain why they disagree with the decision and the
basis on which they wish to proceed with the IC review. [1.22] and
[1.33]
If you do not provide the information requested by 14 June 2024, the OAIC
will finalise this matter on the basis that we are not satisfied the IC
review application has been made by, or on behalf of, the person who made
the FOI request.
Assistance
If you are unable to respond by 14 June 2024, you must request more time
at the earliest opportunity and no later than 7 June 2024. Requests for
more time must explain why you need more time, and you must propose a new
date to provide your response.
If you require assistance regarding this email, please contact us at
[9][email address].
Please quote the reference MR23/01376 and MR23/01375in all correspondence.
Kind regards,
[10][IMG] Claire Lynch (she/her)
Assistant Review Adviser
Freedom of Information Branch
Office of the Australian Information Commissioner
Sydney | GPO Box 5288 Sydney NSW 2001
P 1300 363 992 E [11][email address]
The OAIC acknowledges Traditional Custodians of Country across
Australia and their continuing connection to land, waters and
communities. We pay our respect to First Nations people, cultures and
Elders past and present.
[12]Subscribe to Information Matters
Notice:
The information contained in this email message and any attached files may
be confidential information, and may also be the subject of legal
professional privilege. If you are not the intended recipient any use,
disclosure or copying of this email is unauthorised. If you received this
email in error, please notify the sender by contacting the department's
switchboard on 1300 488 064 during business hours (8:30am - 5pm Canberra
time) and delete all copies of this transmission together with any
attachments.
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[FOI #10637 email]
2. mailto:[email address]
3. https://www.oaic.gov.au/
4. mailto:[email address]
5. https://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-infor...
6. https://www.oaic.gov.au/engage-with-us/n...
7. mailto:[FOI #10637 email]
8. https://www.oaic.gov.au/engage-with-us/c...
9. mailto:[email address]
10. https://www.oaic.gov.au/
11. mailto:[email address]
12. https://www.oaic.gov.au/engage-with-us/n...
Our reference: MR23/01375
Agency reference: AGOFOI23/465
Applicant: Waldek Lupinski
Agency: Office of the Attorney-General
Applicant email: [1][FOI #10637 email]
Agency email: [2][AGD request email]
Notice of Information Commissioner review and request for documents
Dear parties,
Please find attached a notice of Information Commissioner review (IC
Review) and request for documents.
As outlined in the attached notice, a decision was not made within time
(as defined by section 15AC of the FOI Act) and thus the IC reviewable
decision was a deemed access refusal.
We refer the parties to the directions issued by the FOI Commissioner
which outline the obligations of applicants and respondents:
o [3]Direction as to certain procedures to be followed by applicants in
Information Commissioner reviews
o [4]Direction as to certain procedures to be followed by agencies and
ministers in IC reviews
In order to simplify the IC review process, we encourage the respondent
agency to make a revised decision, which specifies the decision is made
under section 55G of the FOI Act. A decision made under the Privacy Act
1988 or administrative access, is not a valid FOI decision and does not
comply with the FOI request.
Please note, a response from the Respondent Agency is requested in this
matter by 13 August 2024. The Agency must send any submissions to the
Applicant at the same time as the OAIC. No action is required by the IC
Review Applicant at this time.
If the Respondent Agency requires an extension of time, they must make a
request in writing to the Information Commissioner with supporting
evidence of the need for extension prior to the due date.
Kind regards,
[5][IMG] Sussan Jraijiri
Review Adviser
Office of the Australian Information Commissioner
GPO Box 5288 Sydney NSW 2001
P: 1300 363 992 E: [6][email address]
Please note: The OAIC will be revising its IC review procedures commencing
1 July 2024. For more information about these revised procedures,
including new resources to assist applicants and respondents, see our
webpage: [7]Upcoming changes to Information Commissioner review procedure
directions
The OAIC acknowledges Traditional Custodians of Country across
Australia and their continuing connection to land, waters and
communities. We pay our respect to First Nations people,
cultures and Elders past and present.
[8]Subscribe to Information Matters
Notice:
The information contained in this email message and any attached files may
be confidential information, and may also be the subject of legal
professional privilege. If you are not the intended recipient any use,
disclosure or copying of this email is unauthorised. If you received this
email in error, please notify the sender by contacting the department's
switchboard on 1300 488 064 during business hours (8:30am - 5pm Canberra
time) and delete all copies of this transmission together with any
attachments.
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[FOI #10637 email]
2. mailto:[AGD request email]
3. https://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-infor...
4. https://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-infor...
5. https://www.oaic.gov.au/
6. mailto:[email address]
7. https://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-infor...
8. https://www.oaic.gov.au/engage-with-us/n...
Our reference: MR23/01375
Agency reference: AGOFOI23/465
Applicant: Waldek Lupinski
Agency: Office of the Attorney-General
Applicant email: [1][FOI #10637 email]
Agency email: [2][AGD request email]
Notice of Information Commissioner review and request for documents
Dear [Personal Information Redacted],
Apologies for the delay in replying.
On 10 May 2024, we closed the IC review under s.54W(c) as we pursued the
review with Attorney General’s Department and after they provided a 55G
revised decision, we reached out to the applicant to confirm if they
wished to proceed with the review. The Applicant did not comply with IC
directions 2.22 or 2.25, and as a result, we closed the review. However,
the applicant did eventually respond and upon further review and
considerable thought, we decided to re-open the case under the IC’s
direction 10.58 and s.55(2)(a) of the FOI Act as the IC considers the
transfer invalid.
Kind regards,
[3][IMG] Sussan Jraijiri
Review Adviser
Office of the Australian Information Commissioner
GPO Box 5288 Sydney NSW 2001
P: 1300 363 992 E: [4][email address]
Please note: The OAIC will be revising its IC review procedures commencing
1 July 2024. For more information about these revised procedures,
including new resources to assist applicants and respondents, see our
webpage: [5]Upcoming changes to Information Commissioner review procedure
directions
The OAIC acknowledges Traditional Custodians of Country across
Australia and their continuing connection to land, waters and
communities. We pay our respect to First Nations people,
cultures and Elders past and present.
[6]Subscribe to Information Matters
From: AGD FOI Requests <[AGD request email]>
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2024 11:16 AM
To: OAIC - FOI DR <[email address]>
Cc: AGD FOI Requests <[AGD request email]>
Subject: AGD to OAIC - AGOFOI23/465 - WALDEK - MR23/01375 – Request
information about validity of new 54Z – 55T notice [SEC=OFFICIAL]
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organisation. Do not click
links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content
is safe.
OFFICIAL
Dear Sussan
Thank you for your email, providing an updated s 55T notice for MR23/01375
(AGOFOI23/465).
On 10 May 2024, the OAIC finalised MR23/01375 under s 54W(c) (see
attached) and then later advised the department that the decision had been
made in error and that the IC review would recommence. The department is
also aware that the applicant was advised of the s 54W(c) decision, as
this correspondence is displayed on the applicant’s Right to Know webpage.
The department is of the view that the OAIC exercised its legislative
power to make an administrative decision to finalise MR23/01375 on 10 May
2024 and it is not clear to the department what powers the OAIC has used
to make a new decision to recommence processing this matter.
The department therefore requests that the OAIC confirm under what section
of the FOI Act or any other Act, the OAIC has relied upon to reopen
MR23/01375.
We would be most grateful for your response to this question as soon as
possible.
Many thanks
[Personal Information Redacted]
FOI & Privacy Section | Office of Corporate Counsel
Attorney-General’s Department
p: 02 6141 6666
Web: [7]www.ag.gov.au | [8]Twitter | [9]Facebook | [10]YouTube |
[11]LinkedIn
OFFICIAL
From: OAIC - FOI DR <[12][email address]>
Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2024 8:51 AM
To: AGD FOI Requests <[13][AGD request email]>
Cc: [14][FOI #10637 email]
Subject: AGOFOI23/465 - 13.08.24 - WALDEK - MR23/01375 – Your Ref:
AGOFOI23/465 - Notice issued under 54Z – 55T – Due 13 August 2024
[SEC=OFFICIAL]
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organisation. Do not
follow guidance, click links, or open attachments unless you recognise the
sender and know the content is safe.
Our reference: MR23/01375
Agency reference: AGOFOI23/465
Applicant: Waldek Lupinski
Agency: Office of the Attorney-General
Applicant email: [15][FOI #10637 email]
Agency email: [16][AGD request email]
Notice of Information Commissioner review and request for documents
Dear parties,
Please find attached a notice of Information Commissioner review (IC
Review) and request for documents.
As outlined in the attached notice, a decision was not made within time
(as defined by section 15AC of the FOI Act) and thus the IC reviewable
decision was a deemed access refusal.
We refer the parties to the directions issued by the FOI Commissioner
which outline the obligations of applicants and respondents:
o [17]Direction as to certain procedures to be followed by applicants in
Information Commissioner reviews
o [18]Direction as to certain procedures to be followed by agencies and
ministers in IC reviews
In order to simplify the IC review process, we encourage the respondent
agency to make a revised decision, which specifies the decision is made
under section 55G of the FOI Act. A decision made under the Privacy Act
1988 or administrative access, is not a valid FOI decision and does not
comply with the FOI request.
Please note, a response from the Respondent Agency is requested in this
matter by 13 August 2024. The Agency must send any submissions to the
Applicant at the same time as the OAIC. No action is required by the IC
Review Applicant at this time.
If the Respondent Agency requires an extension of time, they must make a
request in writing to the Information Commissioner with supporting
evidence of the need for extension prior to the due date.
Kind regards,
[19][IMG] Sussan Jraijiri
Review Adviser
Office of the Australian Information Commissioner
GPO Box 5288 Sydney NSW 2001
P: 1300 363 992 E: [20][email address]
Please note: The OAIC will be revising its IC review procedures commencing
1 July 2024. For more information about these revised procedures,
including new resources to assist applicants and respondents, see our
webpage: [21]Upcoming changes to Information Commissioner review procedure
directions
The OAIC acknowledges Traditional Custodians of Country across
Australia and their continuing connection to land, waters and
communities. We pay our respect to First Nations people,
cultures and Elders past and present.
[22]Subscribe to Information Matters
Notice:
The information contained in this email message and any attached files may
be confidential information, and may also be the subject of legal
professional privilege. If you are not the intended recipient any use,
disclosure or copying of this email is unauthorised. If you received this
email in error, please notify the sender by contacting the department's
switchboard on 1300 488 064 during business hours (8:30am - 5pm Canberra
time) and delete all copies of this transmission together with any
attachments.
OFFICIAL
The Attorney-General’s Department may collect your personal information
where it is reasonably necessary for, or directly related to, our
functions, including those under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI
Act) and the Privacy Act 1988. We may collect your name, email address and
telephone number so that we can contact you about your request or privacy
complaint. If your request concerns accessing or correcting your personal
information, we will collect the minimum amount of evidence necessary to
verify your identity. We hold personal information in accordance with the
Privacy Act and our privacy policy. If you have an enquiry or complaint
about your privacy, please contact the Privacy Officer on 02 6141 6666 or
via e-mail [23][email address].
If you have received this email in error, please notify us immediately by
return email and delete all copies. If this email or any attachments have
been sent to you in error, that error does not constitute waiver of any
confidentiality, privilege or copyright in respect of information in the
email or attachments.
Notice:
The information contained in this email message and any attached files may
be confidential information, and may also be the subject of legal
professional privilege. If you are not the intended recipient any use,
disclosure or copying of this email is unauthorised. If you received this
email in error, please notify the sender by contacting the department's
switchboard on 1300 488 064 during business hours (8:30am - 5pm Canberra
time) and delete all copies of this transmission together with any
attachments.
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[FOI #10637 email]
2. mailto:[AGD request email]
3. https://www.oaic.gov.au/
4. mailto:[email address]
5. https://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-infor...
6. https://www.oaic.gov.au/engage-with-us/n...
7. http://www.ag.gov.au/
8. http://www.twitter.com/agdgovau
9. https://www.facebook.com/attorneygeneral...
10. https://www.youtube.com/user/attorneygen...
11. https://www.linkedin.com/company/attorne...
12. mailto:[email address]
13. mailto:[AGD request email]
14. mailto:[FOI #10637 email]
15. mailto:[FOI #10637 email]
16. mailto:[AGD request email]
17. https://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-infor...
18. https://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-infor...
19. https://www.oaic.gov.au/
20. mailto:[email address]
21. https://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-infor...
22. https://www.oaic.gov.au/engage-with-us/n...
23. mailto:[email address]
Dear OAIC - FOI DR,
MR23/01375
An FOI case officer in the AGD has contacted me and requested my support for an extension of time application that the AG intends to submit in relation to MR23/01375. For the reasons set out in my email to the FOI case officer, I will not support that request for an extension of time. My reasons are set out here: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s....
Yours sincerely,
Waldek
Our reference: MR23/01375
Agency reference: AGOFOI23/465
Waldek Lupinski
Your review application about the Office of the Attorney General
Good morning Waldek,
On 30 August 2023, you made a Freedom of Information (FOI) request to the
Office of the Attorney General (the Minister).
On 14 November 2023, you requested an Information Commissioner (IC) review
of your Freedom of Information request to the Minister because you had not
received a decision by the due date.
On 20 September 2024, the Minister notified the Office of the Australian
Information Commissioner (OAIC) it has now provided you with access to
documents on19 September 2024.
As you have now received a decision, the reason for your IC review
application appears to be resolved.
Action required by you before 25 October 2024:
1. If you no longer require an IC review, please reply to this email
stating “I no longer require an IC review”.
2. If you wish to proceed with your IC review application, you must tell
us which parts of the decision you disagree with and why, including:
o which documents you consider were not provided or should have been
provided, or
o which exemptions you consider should not have been applied.
Intention not to continue to undertake your IC review
The Commissioner’s written [1]direction to IC review applicants provides
that:
o where an applicant wishes to proceed with a review of a substantive
decision they must explain why they disagree with the decision and the
basis on which they wish to proceed with the IC review [2.25], and
o applicants must respond to enquiries from the OAIC within the period
provided unless there are circumstances warranting a longer period to
respond [2.22].
Section 54W(c) of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 provides that the IC
may decide not to continue to undertake a review where an applicant fails
to comply with a direction of the IC.
As such, if we do not hear from you by 25 October 2024, we intend to
exercise the discretion to finalise your IC review application.
Assistance
If you are unable to respond by 25 October 2024, please respond to this
email and request an extension of time to provide your response.
If you require assistance regarding this email, please contact us at
[2][email address].
Please quote the reference MR23/01375 in all correspondence.
Kind
regards,
[3][IMG] Hannah Holswilder
Director, Freedom of Information Branch
Office of the Australian Information Commissioner
Adelaide | GPO Box 5288 Sydney NSW 2001
E [4][email address]
The OAIC acknowledges Traditional Custodians of Country across
Australia and their continuing connection to land, waters and
communities. We pay our respect to First Nations people,
cultures and Elders past and present.
[5]Subscribe to Information Matters
Notice:
The information contained in this email message and any attached files may
be confidential information, and may also be the subject of legal
professional privilege. If you are not the intended recipient any use,
disclosure or copying of this email is unauthorised. If you received this
email in error, please notify the sender by contacting the department's
switchboard on 1300 488 064 during business hours (8:30am - 5pm Canberra
time) and delete all copies of this transmission together with any
attachments.
References
Visible links
1. https://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-infor...
2. mailto:[email address]
3. https://www.oaic.gov.au/
4. mailto:[email address]
5. https://www.oaic.gov.au/engage-with-us/n...
Dear Ms Holswilder,
Our reference: MR23/01375
Agency reference: AGOFOI23/465
I want to put on the record that I do not believe a word of what Mathew Jose has noted in his decision: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/1...
The AG's officials have deceived me before and I have no reason to believe that they are being truthful now. I find it incredibly hard to believe that the AG only has access to 6 documents relating to a matter of constitutional significance, and a matter that has been the subject of consistent adverse commentary in the media and at the appellate level (see, for example, the judgment of the Full Court of the Family Court, in which Judge Vasta was savaged by the appeals division of the Family Court for his conduct with respect of "Mr Stradford": Stradford & Stradford [2019] FamCAFC 25).
That said, I think it is practically futile to continue with the IC review in MR23/01375 because if I were to contest the quality of searches for documents within the scope of my request, the AG's officials would have no problem claiming that the searches were exhaustive. The OAIC does not interrogate the veracity of such claims and takes them at face value, which is regrettable.
I resentfully withdraw IC review application MR23/01375.
I am only withdrawing MR23/01375, which relates to the FOI application made to the Attorney General. I am not withdrawing MR23/01376, which relates to the FOI application made to the Attorney-General's Department.
I will focus my energies on MR23/01376. Would you please provide me with an update on the progress of MR23/01376?
Yours sincerely,
Waldek
Our reference: MR23/01375
Agency reference: AGOFOI23/465
By email: [FOI #10637 email]
Information Commissioner review application about the Attorney-General’s Office
Dear Waldek Lupinski,
Thank you for your email below.
This matter is now considered withdrawn under s 54R of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth).
Section 54R(2) states that if an IC review application is withdrawn, it is taken never to have been made.
The matter is now closed.
We will provide you with an update regarding MR23/01376 in separate correspondence.
Kind regards,
Claire Lynch (she/her)
Assistant Review Adviser
Freedom of Information Branch
Office of the Australian Information Commissioner
Sydney | GPO Box 5288 Sydney NSW 2001
P 1300 363 992 E [email address]
Please note: The OAIC revised its IC review procedures as of 1 July 2024. For more information about these revised procedures, including new resources to assist applicants and respondents, see our webpage: Upcoming changes to Information Commissioner review procedure directions
The OAIC acknowledges Traditional Custodians of Country across Australia and their continuing connection to land, waters and communities. We pay our respect to First Nations people, cultures and Elders past and present.
Dear Waldek,
I write to you regarding your request for an update in relation to MR23/01376.
We apologise for the delay in getting back to you.
We expect to receive a response from the Attorney-General's Department by 14 November 2024.
During that time, the Department has advised our office that they will be engaging with you to attempt to resolve or narrow the issues in dispute.
We will contact you regarding next steps, once we have received their response.
Kind regards,
Claire Lynch (she/her)
Assistant Review Adviser
Freedom of Information Branch
Office of the Australian Information Commissioner
Sydney | GPO Box 5288 Sydney NSW 2001
P 1300 363 992 E [email address]
Please note: The OAIC revised its IC review procedures as of 1 July 2024. For more information about these revised procedures, including new resources to assist applicants and respondents, see our webpage: OAIC Information Commissioner Reviews | Procedure Directions
The OAIC acknowledges Traditional Custodians of Country across Australia and their continuing connection to land, waters and communities. We pay our respect to First Nations people, cultures and Elders past and present.
OFFICIAL
Dear Mr Lupinski
I’m writing in relation to your Information Commissioner (IC) review
application of FOI request FOI23/463, as the department would like to
engage with you about this IC review. In our view, this will be helpful to
clarify some information about the original decision and address some of
the concerns you have raised in your IC application. We note our
engagement with you (to resolve or narrow the issues in dispute in the IC
review) is also a requirement of the new IC Review Directions published by
the OAIC (attached).
It is the OAIC’s preference that this engagement take place by telephone
or video conference where possible. If you are open to talking by phone or
video conference we recommend, for your personal privacy, that you email
us at [1][AGD request email] from an alternative email address and provide us
with your telephone number and a selection of times/days that are
convenient for you to talk.
Kind regards
FOI Case Officer
Freedom of Information and Privacy
Attorney-General’s Department
T: 02 6141 6666 | E: [2][AGD request email]
OFFICIAL
The Attorney-General’s Department may collect your personal information
where it is reasonably necessary for, or directly related to, our
functions, including those under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI
Act) and the Privacy Act 1988. We may collect your name, email address and
telephone number so that we can contact you about your request or privacy
complaint. If your request concerns accessing or correcting your personal
information, we will collect the minimum amount of evidence necessary to
verify your identity. We hold personal information in accordance with the
Privacy Act and our privacy policy. If you have an enquiry or complaint
about your privacy, please contact the Privacy Officer on 02 6141 6666 or
via e-mail [email address].
If you have received this email in error, please notify us immediately by
return email and delete all copies. If this email or any attachments have
been sent to you in error, that error does not constitute waiver of any
confidentiality, privilege or copyright in respect of information in the
email or attachments.
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[AGD request email]
2. mailto:[AGD request email]
MR23/01376
To the FOI case officer,
In your email to me, you have stated:
"It is the OAIC’s preference that this engagement take place by telephone or video conference where possible."
Nowhere in the OAIC's Direction as to certain procedures to be followed by applicants in Information Commissioner reviews has the OAIC noted that "it is OAIC’s preference that this engagement take place by telephone or video conference where possible."
The Directions provide that "engagement with agencies of Ministers MAY comprise a telephone or video conference": paragraph 2.18. That does not mean that "it is OAIC’s preference that this engagement take place by telephone or video conference where possible." Your statement is clearly false.
Paragraph 2.19 of the Directions provides that "Applicants may express a preference to engage with the agency or minister by means other than telephone or video conference. In these cases, the engagement process may be undertaken by other means, to attempt to resolve the issue between the parties or narrow the issues in dispute."
My preferred means of communication is by email to this email address. While records of communications made by telephone or video are unlikely to be maintained, written correspondence is maintained. Anything that you are capable of putting to me over a telephone is able to be put to me in writing.
In light of the falsehoods that have been communicated to me over the course of this saga of an FOI application (including the false statement that "it is OAIC’s preference that this engagement take place by telephone or video conference where possible"), the most prudent course is for correspondence to be in writing in respect of your attempts to narrow the scope of dispute.
Yours sincerely,
Waldek
Thank you for contacting the Freedom of Information (FOI) team at the
Attorney-General’s Department (the department). We get a high volume of
emails and FOI applications and work to respond as promptly as possible.
This auto-reply email confirms your email has been delivered to the
[AGD request email] mailbox. If you have written to the department to submit an
FOI request, please consider this email to be an acknowledgement of its
receipt.
Please note that we will only respond to emails about the Freedom of
Information Act 1982 (the FOI Act). For information on how to make a
request under the FOI Act please refer to:
https://www.ag.gov.au/rights-and-protect....
For enquiries about other matters, please refer to:
https://www.ag.gov.au/about-us/connect-u...
The statutory processing time for FOI requests is 30 days, however this
may be extended if the department needs to consult third parties or for
other reasons. If you have submitted an FOI request, the department will
write to you again within 30 days of receiving your request. This
correspondence may:
* provide assistance to you to help you make a valid FOI request,
* seek further information from you to help us process your request,
* provide you with a decision on your FOI request, or
* discuss whether an extension of time is needed to process your request.
Please do not send duplicate emails as this may cause delays to processing
times.
This FOI inbox is monitored during business hours Monday to Friday,
excluding public holidays.
You can expect our team to provide a helpful, respectful service and we
expect respectful engagement in return.
Under s 89L of the FOI Act, disrespectful, threatening or abusive language
may be an abuse of the access action process. If this happens, we may not
be able to help you or we might take steps to manage how we communicate
with you.
If you have received this transmission in error please notify us
immediately by return e-mail and delete all copies. If this e-mail or any
attachments have been sent to you in error, that error does not constitute
waiver of any confidentiality, privilege or copyright in respect of
information in the e-mail or attachments.
If you have received this transmission in error please notify us
immediately by return e-mail and delete all copies. If this e-mail or any
attachments have been sent to you in error, that error does not constitute
waiver of any confidentiality, privilege or copyright in respect of
information in the e-mail or attachments.
OFFICIAL
Dear Mr Lupinski
Thank you for your response confirming that you prefer to engage with the
department in writing via your Right to Know email address to attempt to
resolve or narrow the issues in dispute.
In your application for Information Commissioner Review of FOI23/463 dated
3 May 2024 (copy attached), you raised a number of issues with the
decisions of an officer of the Attorney-General’s Department made on 27
March 2024 and 17 April 2024.
We consider the following concerns you raised in relation to FOI23/463
were addressed in the decision for FOI request AGOFOI23/465, a copy of
which was sent to you via the Right to Know platform on 19 September 2024:
· You were granted access to documents which you say are publicly
available documents and are not documents for the purposes of the Freedom
of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act) (Paragraph A of your IC Review
application)
· The decision-maker wasted time assessing documents of the
Federal Court of Australia which you say you did not have lawful
entitlement to access under s 12(1)(b) of the FOI Act because they are
court documents capable of being inspected for a fee (Paragraph C of your
IC Review application)
We consider that the decision for AGOFOI23/465, the search request for
which is similar in terms to FOI23/463, showed that:
· As regards Paragraph A of your IC Review Application, publicly
available documents are subject to the FOI Act as outlined in Mills and
Department of Immigration and Border Protection [2014] AICmr 54 [20] and
paragraph 2.41 of the FOI Guidelines published by the Office of the
Australian Information Commissioner;
· As regards Paragraph C of your IC Review Application, time was
spent to consider the court documents because they were captured within
the scope of your request and because they are not open to public access
such that they are exempt from the FOI Act under s 12(1)(b). Time was then
spent to assess whether the court documents could be provided to you or
whether a relevant exemption applied.
In light of this information, if you no longer wish to contest the above
issues or any other issues in relation to FOI23/463 please let us know by
15 November 2024. If the department does not receive a response by this
date we will presume the scope of your IC review remains unchanged.
Kind regards
FOI Case Officer
Freedom of Information and Privacy
Attorney-General’s Department
T: 02 6141 6666 | E: [1][AGD request email]
OFFICIAL
The Attorney-General’s Department may collect your personal information
where it is reasonably necessary for, or directly related to, our
functions, including those under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI
Act) and the Privacy Act 1988. We may collect your name, email address and
telephone number so that we can contact you about your request or privacy
complaint. If your request concerns accessing or correcting your personal
information, we will collect the minimum amount of evidence necessary to
verify your identity. We hold personal information in accordance with the
Privacy Act and our privacy policy. If you have an enquiry or complaint
about your privacy, please contact the Privacy Officer on 02 6141 6666 or
via e-mail [email address].
If you have received this email in error, please notify us immediately by
return email and delete all copies. If this email or any attachments have
been sent to you in error, that error does not constitute waiver of any
confidentiality, privilege or copyright in respect of information in the
email or attachments.
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[AGD request email]
MR23/01376
To the FOI case officer,
The primary issue on IC review is that I was told that there were 176 documents, totalling over 3500 pages, within the scope of my FOI request. That statement was advanced to justify what would amount to an almost 8 month delay in processing my FOI request.
The major ancillary issue is that officials in the AGD are not trustworthy because they have repeatedly advanced falsehoods when communicating with me, or have failed to adhere to their statutory obligations.
Neither the primary issue on IC review nor the major ancillary issue has been addressed in your email.
Rather than focus on the substantive issues, you have focused on lesser issues.
In your email you stated:
“As regards Paragraph A of your IC Review Application, publicly
available documents are subject to the FOI Act as outlined in Mills and
Department of Immigration and Border Protection [2014] AICmr 54 [20] and
paragraph 2.41 of the FOI Guidelines published by the Office of the
Australian Information Commissioner.”
Let it be assumed that you have not misconstrued Commissioner Pilgrim’s words in such a way as to deprive it of its context (I do not accept that, without more, Mills and Department of Immigration and Border Protection [2014] AICmr 54 [20] applies in the instant case). What of it? Are you suggesting that Alice Linacre and Co were justified in making me wait nearly eight months for a decision so that you could grant access to documents that are published online on the websites of other agencies, which you knew I had access to? Of what practical assistance to the OAIC is your assertion? The sloppy nature of the AGD’s work, and the deceptions of its officials, are not refuted by pointing to Mills and Department of Immigration and Border Protection [2014] AICmr 54 [20] and saying “Lo! Our work is kosher!”
In your email, you also stated:
“As regards Paragraph C of your IC Review Application, time was
spent to consider the court documents because they were captured within
the scope of your request and because they are not open to public access
such that they are exempt from the FOI Act under s 12(1)(b). Time was then
spent to assess whether the court documents could be provided to you or
whether a relevant exemption applied.”
That is nonsense. Documents of the Federal Court are documents that are part of a public register (the Court files), and accessing those documents requires the payment of a fee. Paragraph 12(1)(b) of the FOI Act provides that a person is not entitled to obtain access to a document under Part III of the FOI Act to a document that is open to public access, as part of a public register or otherwise, in accordance with an enactment, where that access is subject to a fee or another charge.
The fact that there is a suppression order in respect of the documents does not mean that the documents are any less covered by paragraph 12(1)(b) of the FOI Act. No authority has been cited to support such a view, which was advanced in reasons for decision in MR23/01375. In that decision (https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/1...), Mathew Jose claimed that the court documents were not open to public access. Being open to public access does not mean that the document must be given access to immediately and subject to no impediment but the payment of a fee.
Moreover, the documents that Alice Linacre assessed (documents 16, 18 and 19) were claimed to be notices of filing. But notices of filing are integral parts of the documents that they are appended to: Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), rule 2.24. Therefore the documents in question are more than just notices of filing, and those court documents are, for the reasons noted, not documents for the purposes of the FOI Act.
The sloppy nature of the work of officials in the AGD is on display everywhere. Putting to one side the many falsehoods communicated by the AGD’s officials to me in the course of processing my FOI request, further examples can be adverted to.
Remember how the AGD claimed that the Attorney General had lawfully transferred my FOI request (which was the subject of IC review MR23/1075) to the AGD? https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s...
Remember how the AGD triumphantly declared, on RTK, that it would not enter into any correspondence in respect of my FOI request to the Attorney General because the request was “transferred to another entity”? https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s...
Remember how the AGD was forced to eat its words by the OAIC? https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s...
Sloppy and unlawful work.
I’m not the only one affected by this contempt for legality. Not two days ago, the OAIC refused to grant the AGD an extension of time because it failed to convince the OAIC that the application was meritorious: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/1...
The decision maker, stated:
“The application provides limited evidence of appropriate work being undertaken by
the Agency to process the FOI request to date. As such, it appears the Agency has
not utilised the initial processing period, including the additional time as provided
by the Applicant, effectively and I cannot find that the processing period was
insufficient on the basis of complexity or volume.” https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/1...
As I stated in my IC review application, and have again adverted to in this email, the major ancillary issue is that officials in the AGD are not trustworthy because they have repeatedly advanced falsehoods when communicating with me, or have failed to adhere to their statutory obligations. That is a running theme.
Also, your email is, in my opinion, nothing but an attempt to go through some motions (the bare minimum) to write back to the OAIC and note “we’re engaging on the substantive issues.” You are not engaging on the substantive issues.
Yours sincerely,
Waldek
Thank you for contacting the Freedom of Information (FOI) team at the
Attorney-General’s Department (the department). We get a high volume of
emails and FOI applications and work to respond as promptly as possible.
This auto-reply email confirms your email has been delivered to the
[AGD request email] mailbox. If you have written to the department to submit an
FOI request, please consider this email to be an acknowledgement of its
receipt.
Please note that we will only respond to emails about the Freedom of
Information Act 1982 (the FOI Act). For information on how to make a
request under the FOI Act please refer to:
https://www.ag.gov.au/rights-and-protect....
For enquiries about other matters, please refer to:
https://www.ag.gov.au/about-us/connect-u...
The statutory processing time for FOI requests is 30 days, however this
may be extended if the department needs to consult third parties or for
other reasons. If you have submitted an FOI request, the department will
write to you again within 30 days of receiving your request. This
correspondence may:
* provide assistance to you to help you make a valid FOI request,
* seek further information from you to help us process your request,
* provide you with a decision on your FOI request, or
* discuss whether an extension of time is needed to process your request.
Please do not send duplicate emails as this may cause delays to processing
times.
This FOI inbox is monitored during business hours Monday to Friday,
excluding public holidays.
You can expect our team to provide a helpful, respectful service and we
expect respectful engagement in return.
Under s 89L of the FOI Act, disrespectful, threatening or abusive language
may be an abuse of the access action process. If this happens, we may not
be able to help you or we might take steps to manage how we communicate
with you.
If you have received this transmission in error please notify us
immediately by return e-mail and delete all copies. If this e-mail or any
attachments have been sent to you in error, that error does not constitute
waiver of any confidentiality, privilege or copyright in respect of
information in the e-mail or attachments.
If you have received this transmission in error please notify us
immediately by return e-mail and delete all copies. If this e-mail or any
attachments have been sent to you in error, that error does not constitute
waiver of any confidentiality, privilege or copyright in respect of
information in the e-mail or attachments.
Waldek left an annotation ()
Justice Wigney's judgment:
https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/ju...