Dear Mr Valdez

Your email below is acknowledged and you will be contacted again as soon
as possible with a response to your request.

Regards

The FOI Unit

From:        Mr Valdez <[FOI #2070 email]>
To:        FOI requests at Family Court of Australia
<[Family Court of Australia request email]>,
Date:        20/07/2016 02:22 PM
Subject:        Freedom of Information request - Documents related to the
Association of Family and Conciliation Courts

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Family Court of Australia,

I am making the following request under the Freedom of Information Act
1982 (the FOI Act).

During the period 2006 to date, related to the Association of Family and
Conciliation Courts (Australian Chapter) Incorporated ABN:78-579-371-667:

Those documents, including:

1. Receipts, invoices, bank statements related to establishing the
Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (Australian Chapter)
Incorporated ABN:78-579-371-667.  

2. Application forms and correspondence related to incorporation of the
association with the Victorian regulator (Consumer Affairs Victoria),
Registration number P0028402Y.

3. Application forms and correspondence related to obtaining the
Australian Business Number 78-579-371-667 for the Association of Family
and Conciliation Courts (Australian Chapter) Incorporated.

4. Receipts, invoices, bank statements related to payment of the
Association membership fees for judges , justices, registrars and other
staff of the Family Court of Australia (e.g. family counselors/consultants
etc.).

5. Application forms and correspondence related membership and activities
of the Association for judges, justices, registrars and other staff of the
Family Court of Australia (e.g. family counselors/consultants etc.)

6. Application forms and correspondence with the United States of America
Association of Family and Conciliation Courts board or its members related
to establishing the Australian Chapter of the United States of America
Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (EIN:95-2597407)

7. Correspondence and documents of the Justice Dianna Bryant, in the
course of her duties as an Office holder of the Association of Family and
Conciliation Courts (Australian Chapter) for all years up to and including
2016.  Specifically, but not limited to, the selection presenters at the
Associations annual conference.

During the period 2004 to date, related to the Association of Family and
Conciliation Courts in the USA (EIN:95-2597407):

8. Correspondence and documents of the Justice Dianna Bryant, in the
course of her duties as Director of the Association of Family and
Conciliation Courts of the United States of America for all years up to
and including 2016.  I note the associations IRS From 990 for 2012-2015
states that Justice Bryant spends (on average) 1 hour per week occupied
with the business of the USA Association, which also declares it has
Public Charity Status (Schedule A of Form 990).  Specifically, but not
limited to, documents concerning the appointment of Ms McIntosh as editor
of the Association's journal "Family Court Review".

Please note the Associations IRS Form 990 can be found at:

[1]http://990finder.foundationcenter.org/99...

Yours faithfully,

Mr Valdez

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #2070 email]

Is [Family Court of Australia request email] the wrong address for Freedom of
Information requests to Family Court of Australia? If so, please contact
us using this form:
[2]https://www.righttoknow.org.au/change_re...

This request has been made by an individual using Right to Know. This
message and any reply that you make will be published on the internet.
More information on how Right to Know works can be found at:
[3]https://www.righttoknow.org.au/help/offi...

If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web
manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Valdez

I refer to your email below, in which you request under the Freedom of
Information Act 1982 (the FOI Act), copies of documents you have listed in
that email.

Firstly, before I proceed to my decision, let me provide you with some
general information. The Association of Family and Conciliation Courts
(AFCC) Australian Chapter was formed in 2013 and is a private organisation
with no link to the Family Court of Australia. The fact that a judge may
be a member of the committee (or even President) has no direct relevance
to the Family Court. Judges and Family Consultants are free to join, just
as they are free to join any professional organisation. Accordingly, your
requests under points 1 to 4 and points 6 to 8 relate to a private
organisation, personal matters, and documents held in a private capacity,
all of which are outside of the jurisdiction of the Family Court and which
are therefore outside of the scope of matters I can properly consider on
behalf of the Court.

The Court may pay for Family Consultants to attend annual conferences from
time to time and Judges may be paid to attend a conference if they choose
one as their annual conference.  Administrative documents concerning
payment for attendance at such conferences would be the only type of
document potentially held by the Court that would respond to an FOI
request to the Court such as yours. I have conducted searches in the
Court's corporate services area and have located only one such document.
It falls within the scope of point 5 of your request. That document
consists of one page and is a tax invoice for conference registration
fees.

In my capacity as an officer authorised by the Court to make decisions on
behalf of the Court in accordance with the FOI Act, I have made a decision
to partially release this document to you, exempting from release parts of
the document that refer to contact details (a private address, phone and
fax number) and bank account details, of a third party, that are not, to
my knowledge, available publicly. I make these exemptions on the grounds
of section 47F, which allows for a public interest determination on
personal privacy. In making this decision I had regard to section 11A of
the Act, which refers to public interest, and, in my view, access through
the Court to such information would be on balance contrary to the public
interest.

I attach the redacted document here:

I also attach here information regarding your review rights.

Regards

The FOI Officer

FOI Unit

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Valdez
I refer to your email below.
Your request for internal review of the decision to which you refer is
acknowledged.
You will be contacted again at the earliest opportunity.
Regards

The FOI Officer

FOI Unit

From:        Mr Valdez <[FOI #2070 email]>
To:        FOI requests at Family Court of Australia
<[Family Court of Australia request email]>,
Date:        21/08/2016 02:58 PM
Subject:        Internal review of Freedom of Information request -
Documents related to the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Family Court of Australia,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Family Court of Australia's
handling of my FOI request 'Documents related to the Association of Family
and Conciliation Courts'.

I refer to the FCA's refusal to supply the documents requested in points 1
to 4 and 6-8.

While the establishment and operation of the Association of Family and
Conciliation Courts (Australian Chapter) (hereafter AFCC(AU)) was and is
done by natural persons.  The name of the Association makes it irrefutable
that the Australian Chapter is the Association of the Family Court of
Australia (hereafter FCA).
Any "holder of a judicial office" or "part" of the FCA (as defined by the
FOI Act s 5(1)(b) and s 5(1)(c)) engaged in establishing and operating the
association were acting as or on behalf of the FCA for the purposes of the
FOI Act.
The documents sought relate to activities that are administrative.
 Consequently these are required to be produced by the FCA.

The FCA, a "holder of a judicial office" or other "parts" of the FCA
cannot act outside of its power or authority and at the same time claim
these unlawful actions are protected from public knowledge and scrutiny by
the FOI Act provisions that limit public access to documents arising from
the lawful exercise of the power/authority conferred by the Family Law
Act.  

This is made clear in Bienstein and Family Court of Australia [2006] AATA
385 (2006) 43 AAR 34.  Specifically, at [46]-[48] the (partial)
transcripts of parliamentary debate uses the qualifiers "properly
so-called" when refering to the courts powers.  
Nevertheless, even without these qualifiers in the public debate, it is
axiomatic that a "holder of a judicial office" or other "parts" of the FCA
cannot acheive, as individuals, an end or action, which the Family Law Act
specifically prevents the FCA from undertaking, acheiving or obtaining.

The activities of the AFCC(AU) (and AFCC generally) breach of the
provisions of Part XIVA of the Family Law Act, which establishes The
Australian Institute of Family Studies (hereafter the AIFS) and sets out
its activities and the Ministerial control of those activities.
The FCA cannot undertake activities similar to or the same as the AIFS,
which are activities that parliament placed under the control of the
Minister.
A "holder of a judicial office" or other "parts" of the FCA cannot act in
a private capacity to achieve the same end or outcome that they are
prevented from undertaking as members of the FCA, and have those actions
hidden from public view by the FCA or the administrators of the FCA.  
Consequently, the administrative documents sought are within the scope of
the FOI Act.  

If the FCA's FOI officer does not have the documents because a "holder of
a judicial office" or other "parts" of the FCA holds or withholds, them
then under Sec 21 of the Family Law Act it is within the power of the
Chief Justice (or if the Chief Justice is holding/withholding these
documents, the Deputy Chief Justice) to compel their production.
It is axiomatic that the exemption (FOI Act s 5(1)(b) and s 5(1(c)) in the
FOI Act applies only when the activities of the "holder of a judicial
office" or other "parts" of the FCA are within their power and authority
under Family Law Act Act.

I note that the High Court opinion expressed in Kline v Official Secretary
to the Governor-General [2013] HCA 52 is irrelevant since it does not
consider a situation like that here: Where the Court and its members are
acting Ultra Vires.
Or according to the FCA initial response: The members of the court are
claiming to act in 'private capacity' to achieve an end they are prevented
from achieving in their official capacity.  In  doing so they thwart the
Parliament's intent that the activities of the AFCC(AU) are activities
reserved for Ministerial direction and control via the AIFS, established
by the Family Law Act.

Again, I reiterate the FCA, a "holder of a judicial office" or other
"parts" of the FCA cannot act personally or privately to a achieve an end
the Family Law Act prevents the FCA from achieving, so the exemptions of s
5(1)(b) and 5(1)(c) cannot be relied on here.
Finally, I would point out that the Judicial Conference of Australia
([1]http://www.jca.asn.au/) exists as the proper (independent) Association
for the members of the "holder of a judicial office" or other "parts" of
the FCA.

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

Yours faithfully,

Mr Valdez

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #2070 email]

This request has been made by an individual using Right to Know. This
message and any reply that you make will be published on the internet.
More information on how Right to Know works can be found at:
[3]https://www.righttoknow.org.au/help/offi...

If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web
manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Valdez

I refer to your request to the Court, made under the Freedom of
Information Act 1982 and received on 20 July 2016, to which you received a
decision on 19 August 2016.

On 21 August 2016, you requested an internal review of that decision
(below).  Please find attached the decision made in response to this
request.

Regards

The FOI Officer

The FOI Unit

From:        Mr Valdez <[FOI #2070 email]>
To:        FOI requests at Family Court of Australia
<[Family Court of Australia request email]>,
Date:        21/08/2016 02:58 PM
Subject:        Internal review of Freedom of Information request -
Documents related to the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Family Court of Australia,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Family Court of Australia's
handling of my FOI request 'Documents related to the Association of Family
and Conciliation Courts'.

I refer to the FCA's refusal to supply the documents requested in points 1
to 4 and 6-8.

While the establishment and operation of the Association of Family and
Conciliation Courts (Australian Chapter) (hereafter AFCC(AU)) was and is
done by natural persons.  The name of the Association makes it irrefutable
that the Australian Chapter is the Association of the Family Court of
Australia (hereafter FCA).
Any "holder of a judicial office" or "part" of the FCA (as defined by the
FOI Act s 5(1)(b) and s 5(1)(c)) engaged in establishing and operating the
association were acting as or on behalf of the FCA for the purposes of the
FOI Act.
The documents sought relate to activities that are administrative.
 Consequently these are required to be produced by the FCA.

The FCA, a "holder of a judicial office" or other "parts" of the FCA
cannot act outside of its power or authority and at the same time claim
these unlawful actions are protected from public knowledge and scrutiny by
the FOI Act provisions that limit public access to documents arising from
the lawful exercise of the power/authority conferred by the Family Law
Act.  

This is made clear in Bienstein and Family Court of Australia [2006] AATA
385 (2006) 43 AAR 34.  Specifically, at [46]-[48] the (partial)
transcripts of parliamentary debate uses the qualifiers "properly
so-called" when refering to the courts powers.  
Nevertheless, even without these qualifiers in the public debate, it is
axiomatic that a "holder of a judicial office" or other "parts" of the FCA
cannot acheive, as individuals, an end or action, which the Family Law Act
specifically prevents the FCA from undertaking, acheiving or obtaining.

The activities of the AFCC(AU) (and AFCC generally) breach of the
provisions of Part XIVA of the Family Law Act, which establishes The
Australian Institute of Family Studies (hereafter the AIFS) and sets out
its activities and the Ministerial control of those activities.
The FCA cannot undertake activities similar to or the same as the AIFS,
which are activities that parliament placed under the control of the
Minister.
A "holder of a judicial office" or other "parts" of the FCA cannot act in
a private capacity to achieve the same end or outcome that they are
prevented from undertaking as members of the FCA, and have those actions
hidden from public view by the FCA or the administrators of the FCA.  
Consequently, the administrative documents sought are within the scope of
the FOI Act.  

If the FCA's FOI officer does not have the documents because a "holder of
a judicial office" or other "parts" of the FCA holds or withholds, them
then under Sec 21 of the Family Law Act it is within the power of the
Chief Justice (or if the Chief Justice is holding/withholding these
documents, the Deputy Chief Justice) to compel their production.
It is axiomatic that the exemption (FOI Act s 5(1)(b) and s 5(1(c)) in the
FOI Act applies only when the activities of the "holder of a judicial
office" or other "parts" of the FCA are within their power and authority
under Family Law Act Act.

I note that the High Court opinion expressed in Kline v Official Secretary
to the Governor-General [2013] HCA 52 is irrelevant since it does not
consider a situation like that here: Where the Court and its members are
acting Ultra Vires.
Or according to the FCA initial response: The members of the court are
claiming to act in 'private capacity' to achieve an end they are prevented
from achieving in their official capacity.  In  doing so they thwart the
Parliament's intent that the activities of the AFCC(AU) are activities
reserved for Ministerial direction and control via the AIFS, established
by the Family Law Act.

Again, I reiterate the FCA, a "holder of a judicial office" or other
"parts" of the FCA cannot act personally or privately to a achieve an end
the Family Law Act prevents the FCA from achieving, so the exemptions of s
5(1)(b) and 5(1)(c) cannot be relied on here.
Finally, I would point out that the Judicial Conference of Australia
([1]http://www.jca.asn.au/) exists as the proper (independent) Association
for the members of the "holder of a judicial office" or other "parts" of
the FCA.

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

Yours faithfully,

Mr Valdez

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #2070 email]

This request has been made by an individual using Right to Know. This
message and any reply that you make will be published on the internet.
More information on how Right to Know works can be found at:
[3]https://www.righttoknow.org.au/help/offi...

If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web
manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.

show quoted sections