Documents about “a role review process that had resulted in certain positions being found suitable for either a Legal 2 or (SES1) position, depending on the relative complexity and work load.”

The request was refused by Federal Court of Australia.

Dear Federal Court of Australia,

I refer to a decision provided to me by Assistant Secretary Bridie Dawson of the Attorney General's Department (FOI22/028): see https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s...

In that decision, the Assistant Secretary stated that duties cannot be classified over more than one classification where one of those classifications in an SES band classification (under rule 9 of the Public Service Classification Rules 2000 (Cth)), a point that seems to have, according to an article published in the Australian on 9 February 2022 (Federal Court boss warned on job rule sidestep), animated concerns in the then acting deputy principal registrar of the Federal Court (and current General Counsel), Scott Tredwell.

On 29 March 2022 Claire Hammerton Cole of the Federal Court refused access to documents that I requested on 28 February 2022: see https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s...

In my email of 28 February 2022 I requested:

Under the FOI Act, I request access to any documents held by the Federal Court that set out how it is that positions/roles in the Federal Court may be classified over more than one classification depending on the complexity of the group of duties to be performed, and where one of those classifications in an SES classification.

Ms Hammerton Cole was unable to locate any document that set out how it is that positions/roles in the Federal Court may be classified over more than one classification depending on the complexity of the group of duties to be performed, and where one of those classifications in an SES classification, and for that reason refused access under s 24A of the FOI Act: see https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s...

Under the FOI Act I request access to any and all documents (including but not limited to classification evaluation documents prepared for the “Legal 2” and “SES1” classification level registrar positions referred to in an Australian article published on 9 February 2022 titled Federal Court boss warned on job rule sidestep) that support acting assistant commissioner Kate McMullan’s conclusion that, in relation to the “National Judicial Registrar role”, “a role review process … had resulted in certain positions being found suitable for either a Legal 2 or (SES1) position, depending on the relative complexity and work load”, even though it is plainly unlawful to classify vacancies over a "Legal 2" (i.e. Executive Level 2) and Senior Executive Band 1 classifications.

Yours faithfully,

Louise

External FOI, Federal Court of Australia

1 Attachment

OFFICIAL
Dear Louise

Please find attached correspondence from the Federal Court of Australia.

Kind regards

FOI Officer
Federal Court of Australia

show quoted sections

External FOI, Federal Court of Australia

1 Attachment

OFFICIAL
Dear Louise

Please find attached correspondence from the Federal Court of Australia.

Kind regards

FOI Officer
Federal Court of Australia

show quoted sections

Dear Ms Hammerton Cole,

Thank you for your desultory response.

Please find my half arsed request for internal review copied verbatim from Velan's internal review request:

*****************************************************************************************

Dear Ms Hammerton Cole,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Federal Court of Australia's handling of my FOI request 'Sia Lagos warned on job rule sidestep by her General Counsel'.

In my FOI request I requested the following documents:

i. documents recording the “role review processes” that Kate McMullan based her conclusions on,
ii. documents setting out the classification assessments for the Legal 2 and SES1 versions of the National Judicial Registrar role that Kate McMullan would presumably have referred to when drawing her conclusions,
iii. documents that show that it is possible to broadband a group of duties over an SES classification even though the Public Service Classification Rules forbid such an act.

You refused access to (iii) under s 24A.

I accept that decision.

I do not accept your decisions and reasons for refusing access to (i) and (ii).

You have refused access to (i) and (ii) on the basis of 4 conditional exemptions. None of your reasons for doing so make sense.

You state:

I have assessed the documents found in response to paragraphs (i) and (ii) of your request and consider that they all contain deliberative matter. As outlined above, these documents consist of email communications, including attachments, between the Court and Ms McMullan in relation to Ms McMullan's investigation regarding a public interest disclosure (PID). The documents record the process by which the PID investigation was undertaken and disclose material prepared or recorded as part of the PID deliberative process, before any decision was made regarding that PID ... The documents record an exchange about the investigation conducted by Ms McMullan, all of which occurred before final conclusions/recommendations were reached by Ms McMullan.

Your reasons are bewildering. I asked the Federal Court for "documents recording the “role review processes” that Kate McMullan based her conclusions on" and "documents setting out the classification assessments for the Legal 2 and SES1 versions of the National Judicial Registrar role that Kate McMullan would presumably have referred to when drawing her conclusions." Those documents were not prepared in the course of the PID investigation conducted by Ms McMullan. They do not, as you claim, "record the process by which the PID investigation was undertaken and disclose material prepared or recorded as part of the PID deliberative process, before any decision was made regarding that PID." They precede the PID investigation. They are documents about the review by members of Federal Court staff of the SES1 National Judicial Registrar role that was broadbanded to the "Legal 2" broadband (or vice versa) "depending on the relative complexity [of the role] and the work load."

The documents that I requested are documents that evidence a role review for the National Judicial Registrar role that was conducted by the Federal Court in 2018 or 2019, well before Ms McMullan's PID investigation commenced in May 2020. All of this talk about the documents being document recording "the process by which the PID investigation was undertaken and disclos[ing] material prepared or recorded as part of the PID deliberative process, before any decision was made regarding that PID", is of no relevance.

You are clearly wrong about the documents and your reasons in support are nonsensical verbiage. It's just 18 pages of gobbledygook.

There's another pressing issue.

I made an identical request to the Australian Public Service Commission.

The response I received, on 24 March 2022, by Ms Giorgina Strangio, the Assistant Commissioner for Integrity, Performance and Employment Policy, is set out here: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/f....

In respect of (i), in her decision, she stated:

All reasonable steps have been taken to find any document relevant to Part i. of your request. I refuse Part i. of your request under section 24A of the FOI Act. I cannot confirm or deny the existence of documents within scope of Part i., but I consider the documents requested are more closely connected with the functions of the Federal Court of Australia.

In respect of (ii), in her decision, she stated:

All reasonable steps have been taken to find any document relevant to Part ii. of your request. I refuse Part ii. of your request under section 24A of the FOI Act. I cannot confirm or deny the existence of documents within scope of Part ii., but I consider the documents requested are more closely connected with the functions of the Federal Court of Australia

Ms Strangio's decision was the subject of internal review. It was reviewed by Mr Patrick Hetherington, the First Assistant Commissioner of the Australian Public Service Commission. His internal review decision was dated 7 April 2022 and can be accessed here: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/f...

Mr Hetherington affirmed Ms Strangio's decision.

How could it be that two commissioners of the APSC have stated that they have no documents that satisfy (i) and (ii) and have refused access to my request for documents under s 24A of the FOI Act, while you claim that the reason why access is refused is because the documents exist and were provided to the Ms McMullan of the APSC during a PID investigation? Somebody is lying to me. Are you suggesting that two commissioners of the APSC have lied to me, or are you lying to me?

I have read some of the decisions you have provided and others on this website feel that you are not an objective or trustworthy decision maker (see, for example, https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/c...). It's hard to disagree with their assessments.

I want a complete review of your decision.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s...

Yours faithfully,

Velan

***************************************************************************************

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/d...

Please make an effort to address the terms of request on internal review.

Yours faithfully,

Louise

External FOI, Federal Court of Australia

OFFICIAL
Dear Louise

I acknowledge receipt of your request dated 13 May 2022 for an internal review of the decision made by Registrar Hammerton Cole on 11 May 2022.

In relation to the wording of your request, we ask that you refrain from using offensive language in your communication with the Court. In response to your FOI requests, the Court has been courteous and respectful to you. We ask that you communicate with us in the same manner.

Kind regards

FOI Officer
Federal Court of Australia

show quoted sections

External FOI, Federal Court of Australia

1 Attachment

OFFICIAL
Dear Louise

Please find attached correspondence from the Federal Court of Australia.

Kind regards

FOI Officer
Federal Court of Australia

show quoted sections

Dear Registrar Colbran,

I have reviewed your decision.

In your decision, you state that:

“The decision letter states that the documents found in response to your FOI request are identical to the documents found in response to paragraphs (i) and (ii) of an FOI request made by “Velan” on 26 February 2022. The decision maker therefore decided to adopt the
reasoning she provided in the “Velan” decision on 27 April 2022 in relation to your FOI request.

On 27 May 2022, I sent a decision on internal review to “Velan” stating that I took a different view to the original decision maker, and was of the view that the documents sought by “Velan” cannot be found or do not exist.

However, I am of the view that the internal review of the original decision in “Velan” does not apply to your review request. This is because the documents you seek are not the same as the documents “Velan” sought in his or her FOI request. “Velan” sought “the documents recording the role review processes that Kate McMullan based her conclusions on” and “the documents setting out the classification assessments for the Legal 2 and SES1 versions of the National Judicial Registrar role that Kate McMullan would presumably have referred to when drawing her conclusions.” (emphasis added) As noted above, I am of the view that the documents sought by “Velan” cannot be found or do not exist.

On the other hand, you seek the documents that support Ms McMullan’s conclusion that, “in relation to the “National Judicial Registrar role”, a role review process...had resulted in certain positions being found suitable for either a Legal 2 or (SES 1) position, depending on the relative complexity and work load” (quoting from the article in The Australian dated 9 February 2022). (emphasis added)

I cannot be certain what documents Ms McMullan relied on to support her conclusions. However, I have adopted a broad approach to the scope of documents you seek, and am therefore of the view that all emails provided by the Court to Ms McMullan as part of her investigation conducted under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 (Cth) (PID Act) are within the scope of your FOI request. Other than the outcome of the investigation, these are the same documents found by the Court in relation to your first FOI request. An original decision was made in relation to the first FOI request on 26 April 2022. I made a decision on internal review on 26 May 2022. I am of the view that the decision on internal review in the first FOI request should apply here.”

You also claim that the Court identified “numerous confidential emails and attachments between the Court and Ms McMullan that relate to an investigation conducted under the PID Act into a Registrar recruitment exercise conducted by the Court (the APSC emails)” and that you “refuse access to the APSC emails.”

I intend to seek IC review of your decision because of the several errors that are apparent on the face of your decision.

First, the documents that support Ms McMullan’s conclusion that, “in relation to the “National Judicial Registrar role”, a role review process...had resulted in certain positions being found suitable for either a Legal 2 or (SES 1) position, depending on the relative complexity and work load” and that were provided to the APSC for the purposes of the PID investigation would not be documents created during the course of the PID investigation. Rather, they would be documents that could reasonably support a conclusion that, “in relation to the “National Judicial Registrar role”, a role review process...had resulted in certain positions being found suitable for either a Legal 2 or (SES 1) position, depending on the relative complexity and work load” and they would, by virtue of the temporal sequence of the allegations of wrongdoing preceding the investigation, be documents that existed before the investigation was commenced on 11 May 2020 (as to which see https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/r... – document 3).

You say that you have “adopted a broad approach to the scope of documents you seek”, which is fine, so long as the “broad approach” is not absurd. For example, it would be absurd and unlawful for Ms McMullan to have relied on documents that identify the proposed classifications to be allocated to employees, pursuant to rule 6 of the Public Service Classification Rules 2000, to conclude that “in relation to the “National Judicial Registrar role”, a role review process...had resulted in certain positions being found suitable for either a Legal 2 or (SES 1) [classification, such classifications being allocated to the role, as opposed to the employee, under rule 9 of the Public Service Classification Rules 2000] depending on the relative complexity and work load” of the National Judicial Registrar roles. No reasonable person could rely on documents that identify the proposed classifications to be allocated to APS employees, pursuant to rule 6 of the Public Service Classification Rules 2000, to conclude that “in relation to the “National Judicial Registrar role”, a role review process...had resulted in certain positions being found suitable for either a Legal 2 or (SES 1) [classification, such classifications being allocated to the role, as opposed to the employee, under rule 9 of the Public Service Classification Rules 2000] depending on the relative complexity and work load” of the National Judicial Registrar roles because such reliance would impermissibly elide the legal concepts of allocating classifications to APS employee under rule 6 of the Public Service Classification Rules 2000, and allocating classifications to roles (i.e. the groups of duties to be performed) under rule 9 of the Public Service Classification Rules 2000.

Therefore, the documents that I requested – namely, documents that support Ms McMullan’s conclusion that, “in relation to the “National Judicial Registrar role”, a role review process...had resulted in certain positions being found suitable for either a Legal 2 or (SES 1) position, depending on the relative complexity and work load” – almost invariably, as a matter of reasonability, reasonability being defined by reference to the law on the issue (i.e. rule 9 of the Public Service Classiciation Rules 2000), coincide with the documents that Velan requested (i.e. “the documents recording the role review processes that Kate McMullan based her conclusions on” and “the documents setting out the classification assessments for the Legal 2 and SES1 versions of the National Judicial Registrar role that Kate McMullan would presumably have referred to when drawing her conclusions.”).

Second, you claim that granting access to the documents I have requested (the APSC emails) would “undermine the confidence of employees that the Court can maintain confidentiality during a PID or other investigation into allegations of misconduct by public officials” and are therefore conditionally exempted under s 47E. The Court has not conducted a PID investigation so there is no confidentiality or confidence for the Court to maintain in this instance. Similarly, you claim that s 47F applies to the APSC documents because, “under the PID Act, the Court has significant obligations including with respect to the confidentiality of investigations.” But the Court has no such obligations in this instance because it has not conducted any PID investigations. Tied into this is the public interest ground you have relied on to deny access to the APSC emails. Having conducted the public interest test under s 11A(5), you state that the conditionally exempt documents should not be granted access to because it would “undermine the confidentiality and secrecy provisions of the PID scheme.”

The “secrecy provisions” of the PID Act are set out in section 65 of that Act. Section 65 provides:

(1) A person commits an offence if:
(a)   the person has information (protected information) that the person obtained:
(i)  in the course of conducting a disclosure investigation; or
(ii)  in connection with the performance of a function, or the exercise of a power, by the person under this Act; and
(b)   the person:
(ii)   uses the information.
Penalty:  Imprisonment for 2 years or 120 penalty units, or both.

You have not obtained the “protected information” in the course of conducting a disclosure investigation. Nor have you obtained the “protected information” in connection with the performance of a function, or the exercise of a power, under the PID Act. Kate McMullan of the APSC is bound by s 65 provision, but you are not. You have obtained documents you are relying on for your decision under the terms of the FOI Act. Therefore, your particular claims about the applicability of the PID secrecy provisions to your decision are nonsense. Also, the mere fact that documents that were prepared by the Court that would support the conclusion that “in relation to the “National Judicial Registrar role”, a role review process...had resulted in certain positions being found suitable for either a Legal 2 or (SES 1) position, depending on the relative complexity and work load” do not become inaccessible, on the basis of s 65 of the PID Act, for the purposes of an FOI request because they have also been passed to the APSC for the purposes of a PID investigation. Were that so, the documents that have so far been provided by the Federal Court (e.g. the selection report for the SES Band 1 National Judicial Registrar & District Registrar – QLD role that you provided here – https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/d...) would have been provided to me in contravention of s 65 of the PID Act because those documents would also have been provided to Ms McMullan for her PID investigation. That is obviously not the case and you have not committed an indictable offence in providing such documents.

As I have already said, the documents that support the conclusion that “in relation to the “National Judicial Registrar role”, a role review process...had resulted in certain positions being found suitable for either a Legal 2 or (SES 1) position, depending on the relative complexity and work load” should be documents that were prepared prior to any PID investigation. They are the kinds of documents that Velan requested and it could not reasonably be maintained that documents other than those that set out evaluations of roles by reference to the Australian Public Service Commissioner’s work level standards and by reference to rule 9 of the Public Service Classification Rules 2000 (Cth) are documents within the scope of my request because no reasonable investigator could conclude that “in relation to the “National Judicial Registrar role”, a role review process...had resulted in certain positions being found suitable for either a Legal 2 or (SES 1) position, depending on the relative complexity and work load” on anything other than such information.

Third, you claim that “YU” and Bureau of Meteorology (Freedom of information) [2021] AICmr 75 applies to your reasoning. I doubt it does. “Yu” and Bureau of Meteorology (Freedom of information) [2021] AICmr 75 has nothing to say about FOI requests that have been made to an agency following the publication of allegations of contraventions of laws of the Commonwealth in a national newspaper after a PID investigation was botched by the agency (the APSC in this instance). Even if s 47E does apply to the documents, as you claim it does, you are compelled to provide the documents unless you can establish that it is not in the public interest to refuse granting access to the documents. The reasoning in “YU” and Bureau of Meteorology (Freedom of information) [2021] AICmr 75 proceeds on the assumption that lawful investigations have taken place under the PID Act. It is on that assumption that the Acting Freedom of Information Commissioner insisted that it would be against the public interest to disclose documents that were used in a PID investigation. There is no suggestion in “YU” and Bureau of Meteorology (Freedom of information) [2021] AICmr 75 that the Bureau of Meteorology conducted an abortive PID investigation that was the subject of an external disclosure to a national newspaper under the PID Act. The documents that were found to be exempted from access by the Acting Freedom of Information Commissioner were documents that the decision maker (the principal officer of the Bureau of Meteorology) was provided with under s 65 of the PID Act (see “YU” and Bureau of Meteorology (Freedom of information) [2021] AICmr 75). As I have already stated for the reasons set out above, you (and for that matter, nobody in the Federal Court) is bound be section 65 of the PID Act in this instance.

Fourth, you claim that granting access to the documents would “adversely impact the Court’s ability to openly and frankly discuss candidates for vacant positions, leading to a deterioration of the rigour applied to the management of personnel.” This comment betrays just what kind of documents you are suggesting that Ms McMullan relied on to conclude that “in relation to the “National Judicial Registrar role”, a role review process...had resulted in certain positions being found suitable for either a Legal 2 or (SES 1) position, depending on the relative complexity and work load.” What do documents setting out deliberations about candidates for a role have to do with a review of the role? As you know, or should know, the scope of the duties for a role and the classification to be applied to that role under rule 9 of the Public Service Classification Rules is entirely independent of the people who have applied for the role, or the person who has been selected to fill that role (see, for example, page 21 of the APS Classification Guide, which provides “classification decisions are made on the basis of the work value requirements of the role and not the person performing the role” in its “Busting Myths” section. Also see the role evaluation principles in that Guide). So why would Ms McMullan have had any need to review documents setting out discussions about candidates for vacant positions in the Court to determine that a role review had been conducted? Why would you think that such a document would reasonably fall within the scope of Ms McMullan’s conclusion that “in relation to the “National Judicial Registrar role”, a role review process...had resulted in certain positions being found suitable for either a Legal 2 or (SES 1) position, depending on the relative complexity and work load?” Clearly, you have relied on documents not reasonably within the scope of my request, and that reliance has led you to make a demonstrable error in your reasoning.

Fifth, you claim that granting access to the documents would “undermine the expectations of prospective and current Court employees regarding the protection of their privacy, in particular in recruitment processes” and that, in turn, may “discourage prospective internal and external candidates from applying for positions and, ultimately, make it more difficult for the Court to attract candidates to positions in future” and that, for these reasons, the documents are conditionally exempted under s 47E of the FOI Act. On what basis do people have such expectations? As you are aware, or should be aware, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal held, in the classical decision of Re Dyki and Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1990) 22 ALD 124, that although the disclosure of job applications could result in the standardisation and although the efficiency of the shortlisting process could be impaired, the Tribunal was not satisfied that these adverse effects would be “substantial”. By contrast, applications subject to greater external scrutiny may become more accurate, improving the quality of the selection process. Their disclosure would also contribute to a perception that promotion practices were fair. Accordingly, the AAT held that job applications were not conditionally exempt under the equivalent of s 47E of the FOI Act.

In this instance, it has been established by the APSC that “the relevant employment practices of the FCSA were therefore in contravention of section 10A of the PS Act, and that disclosable conduct, within the meaning of item 1 of the table in subsection 29(1) of the PID Act, has therefore been engaged in … on the basis that the relevant employment practice in relation to the engagement of Ms Wu was conducted in contravention of the PS Act, being a Commonwealth law” (see https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/w... and the article “Untried lawyers score key positions” published in the Australian on 8 February 2022). On what basis can one claim that s 47E applies to the documents that I have requested (let alone that those documents fall reasonably within the scope of documents supporting the conclusion that, “in relation to the “National Judicial Registrar role”, a role review process...had resulted in certain positions being found suitable for either a Legal 2 or (SES 1) position, depending on the relative complexity and work load”)? On what basis can you claim that the granting access to the documents is not in the public interest?

Sixth, you state:

The role of a Registrar of the Court is one of respect and trust. Persons who conduct this role should not be exposed to the risk of personal embarrassment that their standing is compromised by media speculation on the circumstances of their recruitment and the terms of their employment.

I agree that the role of a Registrar of the Court is one of respect and trust. So why is it that Caitlin Wu, a person who had not been admitted to the Supreme Court of a State or Territory even though that was an essential requirement for the role, was promoted by a selection panel constituted by Sia Lagos, David Pringle and Andrea Jarratt to become a Registrar of the Court ahead of “a field of candidates all of whom did have this work-related quality” (see “Untried lawyers score key positions” published in the Australian on 8 February 2022 and https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/u... – selection report)? Why is it that a male national registrar, who had not been admitted to the Supreme Court of a State or Territory even though that was an essential requirement for the role, and who had never managed a case in a superior court of record even though that was an essential requirement for the role, was promoted to the role of national registrar ahead of candidates such as the former Federal Court deputy district registrar, who is also a lecturer at the University of NSW, has published several books about Federal Court litigation and has been a litigator since 1994 (see “Untried lawyers score key positions” published in the Australian on 8 February 2022)? It is precisely because the position of registrar is one of respect and trust that the allegations have stirred such disgust in me and others on this website. It is precisely because the position of registrar is one of respect and trust that it is in the public interest that documents relating to the selection of unmeritorious candidates be granted access to. It is precisely because the position of registrar is one of respect and trust that any allegations that is capable of undermining that trust should be dispelled with candour and transparency.

You claim that “persons who conduct this role should not be exposed to the risk of personal embarrassment that their standing is compromised by media speculation on the circumstances of their recruitment and the terms of their employment”.

There are two issues here.

The first is you claim that what was published in the Australian was “media speculation”. That is a pejorative characterisation. You are suggesting that there is no credible basis for the claims and that the Australian has engaged in nothing more than yellow journalism. That is an unsubstantiated suggestion. Moreover, it is very likely false. Why would the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman conduct a preliminary inquiry into the manner of the PID investigation conducted by Ms McMullan in December 2020 and then, in late March 2022, determine that a category 4 investigation would be required given the seriousness of the issues associated with Ms McMullan’s PID investigation if the underlying issues were just “media speculation”. Are you suggesting that Justice Greenwood’s comments on the record are “media speculation”? Are you suggesting that the allegations that were the subject of the PID investigation are the product of yellow journalism? How could something so irresponsible be recorded by a woman who has been directed to exercise judicial power as invested in the Federal Court? How embarrassing.

The second issue is that, once again, documents about individuals and the terms of their employment cannot reasonably be documents that could support Ms McMullan’s conclusion that, “in relation to the “National Judicial Registrar role”, a role review process...had resulted in certain positions being found suitable for either a Legal 2 or (SES 1) position, depending on the relative complexity and work load.” Documents setting out an individual’s terms of employment have nothing to do with the role that individual is required to perform. The role is separate to the individual. The classification allocated to the role (under rule 9 of the Public Service Classification Rules) is separate to the classification allocated to the individual (under rule 6 of the Public Service Classification Rules). Why would such documents be included within the scope of the documents that I have sought?

Seventh, you state the following:

a) The disclosure of the information prejudices the right to privacy of the individuals identified in the documents and exposes them to unreasonable stress and anxiety. The FOI request was made in the context of a series of reports in The Australian newspaper regarding the recruitment of Registrars to the Court. These articles do not identify the Registrars by name. If the documents were released, it would release also the names of the Registrars concerned. It would therefore link them to the allegations in the newspaper articles and expose them to the risk of having their personal details and circumstances of their recruitment with the Court being the subject of further media attention;

b) undermine the confidence of the public in the Court’s Registrars6 who have been named in the PID investigation.

With respect, these reasons are nothing more than proxies for the following propositions:

i) access to the document could result in embarrassment to the Commonwealth Government, or cause a loss of confidence in the Commonwealth Government; and
ii) the author of the document was (or is) of high seniority in the agency to which the request for access to the document was made.

According to s 11B(4) of the FOI Act, these propositions must not be taken into account in deciding whether access to the document would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest. No matter how you try to twist your words, the underlying propositions shine through (much to the chagrin of those who have contravened the laws of the Commonwealth).

For the reasons set out, your decision is wrong and, accordingly, will be the subject of an IC review application.

Yours sincerely,

Louise

Federal Court of Australia

 
 
  [1]Office of the Australian Information Reference Code:  
Commissioner ICR_10-49335705-2674
 

 
You submitted a form called: FOI Review_
 
Your form reference code is: ICR_10-49335705-2674

To check the progress of your submission and/or confirm it has been
received you should contact the agency that provides the form. These
details are displayed below.
 
 
Office of the Australian Information Commissioner
[2]http://www.oaic.gov.au | [3]1300 363 992 | [4][email address]
GPO Box 5218, Sydney NSW 2001
 
 
Note: Please do not reply to this auto-generated email.
 

References

Visible links
2. http://www.oaic.gov.au/
3. file:///tmp/tel:1300 363 992
4. mailto:[email address]

Federal Court of Australia

 
 
  [1]Office of the Australian Information Reference Code:  
Commissioner ICR_10-49335705-2674
 

 
You submitted a form called: FOI Review_
 
Your form reference code is: ICR_10-49335705-2674

To check the progress of your submission and/or confirm it has been
received you should contact the agency that provides the form. These
details are displayed below.
 
 
Office of the Australian Information Commissioner
[2]http://www.oaic.gov.au | [3]1300 363 992 | [4][email address]
GPO Box 5218, Sydney NSW 2001
 
 
Note: Please do not reply to this auto-generated email.
 

References

Visible links
2. http://www.oaic.gov.au/
3. file:///tmp/tel:1300 363 992
4. mailto:[email address]

Federal Court of Australia

1 Attachment

Our reference: MR22/00977

 

By email: [FOI #8734 email]

Receipt of your IC review application  

Thank you for your application for Information Commissioner Review (IC
review).

The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) is
considering your application.

If you wish to advise the OAIC of any changes to your circumstances,
including your contact details or if your FOI request has been resolved,
please write to [email address] and quote MR22/00977.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Freedom of Information Regulatory Group

Office of the Australian Information Commissioner

 

 

 

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.