We don't know whether the most recent response to this request contains information or not – if you are Ray B1 please sign in and let everyone know.

Documents relating to the selection of Claire Gitsham as an Executive Level 2 National Judicial Registrar in the Federal Court

We're waiting for Ray B1 to read a recent response and update the status.

Dear Federal Court of Australia,

The annual reports of the Federal Court can be accessed on the website of the Federal Court – https://fedcourt.gov.au/digital-law-libr...

The first reference to Claire Gitsham in an annual report of the Federal Court of Australia is to be found in the 2018-2019 annual report. Claire Gitsham is listed as a National Judicial Registrar based in Melbourne, Victoria, in the 2018-2019 annual report of the Federal Court of Australia (see page 130 of the 2018-2019 annual report). There is no reference to Claire Gitsham in any earlier published annual report of the Federal Court of Australia. That is explained by an unclassified email sent to all registrars of the Federal Court, among others, by Sia Lagos in Friday, 2 November 2018. In that email, titled “Update: Registrar recruitment”, Ms Lagos stated:

“As you are aware, over the past few months we have been undertaking an extensive recruitment exercise to backfill a number of vacant National Judicial Registrar positions and, as part of the extension of the National Court Framework to the work undertaken by registrars, establishing registrar resources to support judges nationally, including through greater availability to conduct mediations and specialist support in the area of migration.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Tim Luxton, Murray Belcher and Russell Trott, on their appointment to the National Judicial Registrar and District Registrar roles for the VIC, QLD and WA registries respectively, and Katie Stride on her appointment to the National Judicial Registrar – Native Title position.

I addition, I would to congratulate (sic) and welcome the following Registrars to the Court, who will be introduced to the Judges and staff as part of their induction program:

National Judicial Registrar – Claire Gitsham

This position will primarily be responsible for performing delegated judicial functions at a high level, including conducting complex mediations and case management locally and nationally, and supporting National Coordinating NPA judges with the management of NPAs. Claire will be located in Melbourne and commences with the Court on 30 January 2019. Claire was a partner at Thomson Geer, Melbourne – Dispute Resolution and has over 10 years’ experience in complex commercial litigation, specialising in commercial and superannuation matters, intellectual property and general litigation. Claire also has extensive mediation and arbitration experience.”

Claire Gitsham is listed as a National Judicial Registrar based in Melbourne in the 2019-2020 annual report of the Federal Court of Australia (see page 126 of 2019-2020 annual report).

Claire Gitsham is listed as a National Judicial Registrar based in Melbourne in the 2020-2021 annual report of the Federal Court of Australia (see page 127 of the 2020-2021 annual report).

According to a document dated 12 October 2018 and titled “Offer of Engagement – Ongoing APS Employee”, Claire Gitsham was offered, by the Agency Head, ongoing and full-time employment to fill an Executive Level 2 National Judicial Registrar vacancy. The document provides:

“12 October 2018

Ms Claire Gitsham …

Dear Claire,

Offer of Engagement – Ongoing APS Employee

I am pleased to advise you have been offered ongoing employment in the Federal Court of Australia. The details and conditions of your ongoing employment are outlined in this letter.

1. Position Details

Jurisdiction ---------- Federal Court of Australia
Job Title --------- National Judicial Registrar
Location ----------- Melbourne, VIC
Classification ---------- Legal 2 (EL 2)
Salary ----------- $150,391 per annum, plus superannuation
Position Number ---------- 1656
Status ---------- Ongoing, Full-Time
Commencement Date ---------- 30.1.19 (see attached email)

2. Terms and Conditions of Employment

The terms and conditions of the employment are as set out in the Federal Court of Australia Enterprise Agreement 2018-2021, and any enterprise agreement that replaced that agreement.

Other terms and conditions of your employment are set out in Commonwealth legislation, including the Public Service Act 1999.

6. Acceptance of the Offer

… If you have any questions regarding your employment, please do not hesitate to contact Darrin Moy …”

Ms Gitsham accepted the “Offer of Engagement – Ongoing APS Employee” on 15 October 2018.

Attached to that “Offer of Engagement – Ongoing APS Employee” was an individual flexibility arrangement and according to its terms, Ms Gitsham was offered a princely increase in her rate of pay (clauses 3.2 and 3.3 of the IFA) and the option of a private plated vehicle “in accordance with the Court’s Executive Vehicle Scheme” (clause 3.4 of the IFA).

Ms Gitsham accepted the terms of the individual flexibility arrangement attached to the “Offer of Engagement – Ongoing APS Employee” on 15 October 2018.

There is an apparent hierarchy of registrars in the Federal Court. A perusal of the Federal Court’s annual reports from the 2017-2018 financial year show that National Registrars are at the bottom of the hierarchy. National Registrars are outranked by Judicial Registrars, who are, in turn, outranked by National Judicial Registrars, who are, in turn, outranked by Senior National Judicial Registrars. There also appears to be a progression in the classifications of these registrars. National Registrar roles bear EL1 classifications, Judicial Registrar roles bear EL2 classifications, and Senior National Judicial Registrar roles bear SES Band 2 classifications. Interestingly, the National Judicial Registrar roles appear to be broadbanded across the Executive Level 2 and SES Band 1 classifications. This observation is based solely on position descriptions published on the Federal Court’s disclosure log (see PA2925-06/40 – www.fedcourt.gov.au/disclosurelog) because classification evaluation documents have been refused access to on multiple occasions by FOI decision makers on the ground that they do not exist / cannot be found (see, for example, https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/p... https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/c... https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/m...).

According to the position descriptions for the Executive Level 2 classified National Judicial Registrar role and the SES Band 1 classified National Judicial Registrar role, National Judicial Registrars, among others things, are required to perform “a leadership role for Judicial Registrars and legal support staff at a local and national level.” This fact more than suggests that that National Judicial Registrars constitute a class of registrars that is distinct to Judicial Registrars and supports the view that National Judicial Registrars outrank Judicial Registrars. In fact, the Judicial Registrar role (PA2925-06/40), which is classified at the Executive Level 2 classification, is separate, and distinct in its requirements, to the National Judicial Registrar role (regardless of the classifications of the National Judicial Registrar role). There is a focus on the more complex nature of the legal work that National Judicial Registrars handle when those duties are compared to the duties that Judicial Registrars handle.

An article was published in The Australian on 9 February 2022 by the title Federal Court boss warned on job rule sidestep. The authors of that article noted that the “top Federal Court bureaucrat was warned by her deputy the court could be in breach of public service rules after it hired a string of … registrars on lower classifications – then bumped up their salaries and titles to ‘get around’ a limit on senior appointments.”

The journalists noted that “[s]ome internal promotions, the special deals known as individual flexibility arrangements show, were given pay rises of around $50,000 a year despite ostensibly remaining at the same level. Under public service rules, agencies and departments can apply more than one classification to a group of duties – a practice known as broadbanding. However, the rules say ‘this does not apply to a group of duties to be performed by an SES employee’.”

Following an investigation conducted by Kate McMullan of the Australian Public Service Commission, Ms McMullan made a finding that “allegations of impropriety in the recruitment of processes which resulted in the appointment of eight registrars under the [individual flexibility arrangements” were without basis because “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 workload.” This finding was made despite the fact that Scott Tredwell, the Acting Deputy Principal Registrar of the Federal Court at the time, wrote to Sia Lagos stating:

“I have some concerns regarding our proposed statements in respect of the SES cap and our use of Individual Flexibility Agreements to, in effect, get around the cap.

I’m also wondering how our response sits as against the Public Service Classification Rules 2000, particularly Rules 6 to 10.”

In a separate email, Matt Asquith, the Court’s Assistant People and Culture Director admitted that “the decision on whether to classify registrars into EL2 and SES1 bands is primarily based not only on the additional responsibilities undertaken, but ‘[t]he SES cap the Court has, and if the positions can fit within the cap.”

Since the publication of Federal Court boss warned on job rule sidestep on 9 February 2022, it has become apparent that the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman conducted a preliminary inquiry into the investigation conducted by Ms McMullan. On 18 March 2022, in a document bearing an internal reference number of 2021-104592, the acting Commonwealth Ombudsman wrote to the Australian Public Service Commissioner, noting:

“I am writing to advise the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman (the Office) has decided to commence an investigation under the Ombudsman Act 1976 (the Ombudsman Act) into the handling of a Public Interest Disclosure (PID) investigation by your PID Investigator Delegate, Ms Kate McMullan …

On 20 December 2021 the Office sent a preliminary inquiry to to the APSC under s 7A of the Ombudsman Act. The APSC provided an unredacted copy of the PID Investigator’s report on 20 December 2021, and the remainder of its response on 13 January 2022.

Having considered the information provided by the complainant and the APSC, the Office has decided to investigate the APSC’s handling of the PID Investigation.”

On at least three occasions, an FOI decision maker in the Federal Court has refused to provide documents evidencing Ms McMullan’s finding that “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 workload” because such documents do not exist / cannot be found (https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s... https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/d... https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/r...). That does beg the question how Ms McMullan could have found that “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 workload.”

Putting to one side the facts that:

a) two position descriptions published on the disclosure log of the Federal Court indicate that the National Judicial Registrar role is classified at both the Executive Level 2 classification and the SES Band 1 classification (PA2925-06/40); and

b) it is against the law to allocate more than one classification to a group of duties (or a role) under on the basis of the relative complexity of the duties, and workload, if one of the classifications is a Senior Executive Band classification (a point that was not lost on Scott Tredwell, the official who warned the top Federal Court bureaucrat about classifying roles with a view to getting around the rule 9(5) of the Public Service Classification Rules and the capped number of SES position available to the Federal Court Statutory Agency); and

c) the Federal Court does not have any documentary evidence of “a role review process [that] resulted in certain positions being found suitable for either a Legal 2 or (SES1) position, depending on the relative complexity and workload”; and

d) the PID investigation Ms McMullan conducted is now under investigation by the Commonwealth Ombudsman,

there are still glaring problems with Claire Gitsham’s engagement to fill the Executive Level 2 National Judicial Registrar vacancy.

I have searched intently through many issues of the Public Service Gazette and have not come across any advertised National Judicial Registrar vacancies at the Executive Level 2 classification (as distinct from SES 1 “National Judicial Registrar & District Registrar” vacancies, which are different to the “National Judicial Registrar” roles because the SES 1 “National Judicial Registrar & District Registrars” are, unlike “National Judicial Registrars” appointed to the office of District Registrar in a District Registry of the Federal Court e.g. Nicola Colbran, Tim Luxton – refer to annual reports of the Federal Court from 2018-2019 onwards). This is problematic because, if there was no notice published in the Public Service Gazette for the Executive Level 2 “National Judicial Registrar” that Claire Gitsham was engaged to fill, eligible members of the Australian community would not have been given an opportunity to apply for the Executive Level 2 National Judicial Registrar vacancy that Ms Gitsham was engaged to fill. That would contravene merit-based selection requirements set out in the Australian Public Service Commissioner’s Directions.

Under the FOI Act, I request access to:

a) the vacancy notification published in the Public Service Gazette for the Executive Level 2 National Judicial Registrar vacancy that Claire Gitsham applied for;

b) the vacancy notification published in the Public Service Gazette for the Executive Level 2 National Judicial Registrar vacancy that Claire Gitsham was selected to fill in the course of a merit based selection process for that Executive Level 2 National Judicial Registrar role;

c) the record of decision (by a selection panel or otherwise) to select Claire Gitsham to fill the Executive Level 2 National Judicial Registrar vacancy, which was made in the course a merit based selection process for the Executive Level 2 National Judicial Registrar role that Claire Gitsham was selected to fill; and

d) the record of the reasons for decision (by a selection panel or otherwise) to select Claire Gitsham to fill the Executive Level 2 National Judicial Registrar vacancy, which was made in the course a merit based selection process for the Executive Level 2 National Judicial Registrar role that Claire Gitsham was selected to fill.

I have scoured the Public Service Gazette to find a vacancy notification for an Executive Level 2 National Judicial Registrar vacancy. I have not found it. I have reviewed past FOI applications made for the vacancy notification published in the Public Service Gazette for the Executive Level 2 National Judicial Registrar role. FOI decision makers have failed to provide the vacancy notification (although they have advanced bogus claims that irrelevant documents are the documents requested – see, for example, https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/v...). That does beg the question how Claire Gitsham was able to apply for an Executive Level 2 National Judicial Registrar vacancy she was engaged to fill, and whether she was engaged to fill that position in a way that would have contravened the merit based selection requirements set out in the Public Service Act 1999 and the Australian Public Service Commissioner’s Directions 2016.

Please read these paragraphs very carefully and ensure that the documents you claim fall within the scope of the FOI request do, in fact, fall within the scope of the FOI request. You should now be aware that I am nobody’s fool and that any attempt to stonewall a lawful decision by advancing bogus claims about the existence of documents that, in reality, do not address the terms of my FOI request will simply be escalated to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner.

Yours faithfully,

Ray B1

External FOI, Federal Court of Australia

1 Attachment

OFFICIAL
Dear Ray B1

Please find attached correspondence from the Federal Court of Australia.

Kind regards

FOI Officer

show quoted sections

Dear FOI Officer,

I am contesting the proposed charges you have listed in your letter.

You claim that search and retrieval of the documents took, or will take, 30 minutes. I do not think that to be the case. I have been very specific with my request and all of the documents requested would reasonably be expected to be located in a single location – Claire Gitsham’s APS employee file. That expectation is based on the core activities associated with personnel management, which includes “managing recruitment of personnel to the Australian Public Service (APS), including ongoing, non-ongoing and SES employees, and employment scheme participants such as those working under scholarships, fellowships, traineeships, apprenticeships and similar relationships. Includes applying for approval to fill vacancies, advertising vacant positions, and the handling of applications, interviews, selection and appointment”. Such documents would reasonably be expected to be kept in an APS employee file or something similar. It should not take 30 minutes to find documents that are plainly similar in their nature (i.e. documents pertaining to the merit based recruitment of Claire Gitsham into an Executive Level 2 National Judicial Registrar vacancy). I think six minutes would be more than adequate time. The cost of searching should be about $1.50.

According to the FOI Guidelines:

An agency should ensure that the notice to an applicant of a charge fully explains and justifies the charge. Implicit in the ‘lowest reasonable cost’ objective is the requirement for sound record keeping so that an agency’s documents can be readily identified and found when an FOI request is received.

According to the FOI Guidelines:

Agencies and ministers should interpret the ‘lowest reasonable cost’ objective broadly in imposing any charge under the FOI Act. That is, an agency or minister should have regard to the lowest reasonable cost to the applicant, to the agency or minister, and the Commonwealth as a whole. Where the cost of calculating and collecting a charge might exceed the cost to the agency of processing the request, it may generally be more appropriate not to impose a charge.

Let it be conservatively assumed that the FOI Officer who prepared the charge estimate letter and the invoice is paid $40 per hour (including superannuation and leave entitlements). Let it be very generously assumed that it took the FOI Officer 10 minutes to:

a) calculate the charges to be requested;
b) prepare the charge estimate letter; and
d) dispatch the documents by email.

It would have cost the Commonwealth $6.67 for the FOI Officer to do that.

The cost of calculating and collecting the charge exceeds the reasonable cost to the agency of searching for the documents.

Accordingly, the proposed search charge is inappropriate.

I requested the following documents:

a) the vacancy notification published in the Public Service Gazette for the Executive Level 2 National Judicial Registrar vacancy that Claire Gitsham applied for;

b) the vacancy notification published in the Public Service Gazette for the Executive Level 2 National Judicial Registrar vacancy that Claire Gitsham was selected to fill in the course of a merit based selection process for that Executive Level 2 National Judicial Registrar role;

c) the record of decision (by a selection panel or otherwise) to select Claire Gitsham to fill the Executive Level 2 National Judicial Registrar vacancy, which was made in the course a merit based selection process for the Executive Level 2 National Judicial Registrar role that Claire Gitsham was selected to fill; and

d) the record of the reasons for decision (by a selection panel or otherwise) to select Claire Gitsham to fill the Executive Level 2 National Judicial Registrar vacancy, which was made in the course a merit based selection process for the Executive Level 2 National Judicial Registrar role that Claire Gitsham was selected to fill.

You know as well as I that no vacancy notification was published in the Public Service Gazette for the Executive Level 2 National Judicial Registrar vacancy. Accordingly, Claire Gitsham could not have applied for an Executive Level 2 National Judicial Registrar vacancy. It follows that Claire Gitsham could not have been selected to fill an Executive Level 2 National Judicial Registrar vacancy in the course of a merit based selection process for that Executive Level 2 National Judicial Registrar role. This much has been confirmed by National Judicial Registrar and District Registrar Nicola Colbran: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/m....

You know as well as I that no record of decision (by a selection panel or otherwise) to select Claire Gitsham to fill the Executive Level 2 National Judicial Registrar vacancy was made in the course a merit based selection process for the Executive Level 2 National Judicial Registrar role that Claire Gitsham was selected to fill. Do not try to pass off the record of decision to select Paul Farrell to fill an SES Band 2 Senior National Judicial Registrar vacancy as the record of decision that I have requested. Do not try to pass off the record of decision to select Catriona Stride to fill an SES Band 1 National Judicial Registrar – Native Title vacancy as the record of decision that I have requested. Do not try to pass off the record of decision to select Catherine Krol to fill an SES Band 1 National Appeal Registrar vacancy as the record of decision that I have requested. Do not try to pass off the record of decision to select Tim Luxton to fill an SES Band 1 National Judicial Registrar & District Registrar – VIC vacancy as the record of decision that I have requested. I have not asked you for any of those documents. As you already know, National Judicial Registrar & District Registrar Nicola Colbran set aside the duplicitous reasons that Claire Hammerton Cole advanced and confirmed, in response to a request for the selection committee's selection report in relation to the National Judicial Registrar role that Claire Gitsham applied for and was selected to fill, that the selection report did not exist.

You know as well as I that a record of the reasons for decision (by a selection panel or otherwise) to select Claire Gitsham to fill the Executive Level 2 National Judicial Registrar vacancy, which was made in the course a merit based selection process for the Executive Level 2 National Judicial Registrar role that Claire Gitsham was selected to fill, does not exist because there was never a merit based selection process for the Executive Level 2 National Judicial Registrar role that Claire Gitsham was selected to fill.

I have seen an external disclosure made under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013, which included Kate McMullan’s report issued under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013. Don’t try to lie your way through this. I was lied to about the existence of documents and the need to pay for those documents by the FOI Officer. I called this liar’s bluff. B Henderson conceded as much: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/d....

You must be having a laugh if you think that it will take 5.5 hours to prepare a decision in respect of documents that do not objectively fall within the terms of my FOI request.

I am confident that the estimate of 5.5 hours is simply incorrect because whatever documents you claim to be looking at do not objectively fall within the scope of the documents I have requested under the FOI Act. Of course, you can contend that I am wrong all you like. I will simply seek IC review of any decision to insist on payment and, naturally, as part of that review, the OAIC will request copies of the documents you claim are the documents that I requested, only to tell you that whatever documents you provide do not fall within the scope of my request and that, consequently, the decision to charge is without basis. As you know, the Federal Court will have the onus of establishing that the proposed charges should apply. Good luck insisting on charges for documents that do not objectively fall within the scope of my FOI request.

Since:

a) there was no vacancy notification published in the Public Service Gazette for the Executive Level 2 National Judicial Registrar vacancy that Claire Gitsham applied for; and

b) there was no vacancy notification published in the Public Service Gazette for the Executive Level 2 National Judicial Registrar vacancy that Claire Gitsham was selected to fill in the course of a merit based selection process for that Executive Level 2 National Judicial Registrar role; and

c) no records exist of a decision (by a selection panel or otherwise) to select Claire Gitsham to fill the Executive Level 2 National Judicial Registrar role, which was made in the course a merit based selection process for the Executive Level 2 National Judicial Registrar vacancy that Claire Gitsham was selected to fill; and

d) no records exist of the reasons for decision (by a selection panel or otherwise) to select Claire Gitsham to fill the Executive Level 2 National Judicial Registrar role, which was made in the course of a merit based selection process for the Executive Level 2 National Judicial Registrar vacancy that Claire Gitsham was selected to fill; and

e) I am quite confident that (a) – (d) are correct,

the 5.5 hour estimate and the associated charge are incorrect.

I do not intend to pay a cent to access documents that do not fall within the scope of my FOI request.

If I am wrong, the OAIC (assuming it deals with any IC review lawfully) will uphold the decision maker’s decision and I will have egg on my face.

But I doubt I will have any egg on my face.

Yours sincerely,

Ray B1

External FOI, Federal Court of Australia

OFFICIAL
Dear Ray B1

I acknowledge receipt of your email below contesting the charges as advised by letter from the Federal Court of Australia dated 19 August 2022 in relation to your FOI request of 3 September 2022.

Kind regards

FOI Officer
Federal Court of Australia

show quoted sections

External FOI, Federal Court of Australia

1 Attachment

OFFICIAL
Dear Ray B1

Please find attached correspondence from the Federal Court of Australia.

Kind regards

FOI Officer
Federal Court of Australia

show quoted sections

Dear B Henderson,

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 'Documents relating to the selection of Claire Gitsham as an Executive Level 2 National Judicial Registrar in the Federal Court'.

Your reasons for decision are nonsense. They constitute just another contrivance by an FOI officer in the Federal Court. I do not expect you to be honest or transparent. Having seen the way that FOI officers in the Federal Court conduct themselves on this website, but for Nicola Colbran, I think the Federal Court’s FOI officers have little integrity.

I again press the reasons that I pressed in my correspondence of 19 September 2022.

You can claim that you have documents that fall within the scope of my request all you like. You are at best mistaken and, probably, just lying.

The fact is that no vacancy notification was published in the Public Service Gazette for the Executive Level 2 National Judicial Registrar vacancy that Claire Gitsham applied for. You know that. I know that. Soon enough the staff in the OAIC will know that and, when a decision is made by the FOI Commissioner, the public will know that no vacancy notification was published in the Public Service Gazette for the Executive Level 2 National Judicial Registrar vacancy that Claire Gitsham applied for. You could dispel my claims by simply identifying the issue of the Public Service Gazette in which the relevant the vacancy notification was published. You’d make me look like a right tit. But you won’t be able to because the document does not exist.

The fact is that no vacancy notification was published in the Public Service Gazette for the Executive Level 2 National Judicial Registrar vacancy that Claire Gitsham was selected to fill in the course of a merit based selection process for that Executive Level 2 National Judicial Registrar role. You know that. I know that. Soon enough the staff in the OAIC will know that and, when a decision is made by the FOI Commissioner, the public will know that. You could dispel my claims by simply identifying the issue of the Public Service Gazette in which the relevant the vacancy notification was published. You’d make me look like a right tit. But you won’t be able to because the document does not exist.

The fact is that no record of decision (by a selection panel or otherwise) to select Claire Gitsham to fill the Executive Level 2 National Judicial Registrar vacancy, which was made in the course a merit based selection process for the Executive Level 2 National Judicial Registrar role that Claire Gitsham was selected to fill, exists. You know that. I know that. Soon enough the staff in the OAIC will know that and, when a decision is made by the FOI Commissioner, the public will know that. There could not have been a merit based selection process for the Executive Level 2 National Judicial Registrar vacancy that Claire Gitsham was selected to fill because the vacancy that she was selected to fill, a full time, ongoing, Executive Level 2 vacancy was never published and made known to the Australian community. Claire Gitsham, a candidate selected from outside the Australian Public Service (she was a partner at Thomson Geer prior to being selected to fill the Executive Level 2 National Judicial Registrar vacancy), was handed an Executive Level 2 National Judicial Registrar role without a merit based selection process for the vacancy she came to fill. Therefore, there is no record of decision (by a selection panel or otherwise) to select Claire Gitsham to fill the Executive Level 2 National Judicial Registrar vacancy, which was made in the course a merit based selection process for the Executive Level 2 National Judicial Registrar role that Claire Gitsham was selected to fill. The document does not exist.

The fact is that no record of reasons for decision (by a selection panel or otherwise) to select Claire Gitsham to fill the Executive Level 2 National Judicial Registrar vacancy, which was made in the course a merit based selection process for the Executive Level 2 National Judicial Registrar role that Claire Gitsham was selected to fill, exists. You know that. I know that. Soon enough the staff in the OAIC will know that and, when a decision is made by the FOI Commissioner, the public will know that. There could not have been a merit based selection process for the Executive Level 2 National Judicial Registrar vacancy that Claire Gitsham was selected to fill because the vacancy that she was selected to fill, a full time, ongoing, Executive Level 2 vacancy was never published and made known to the Australian community. Claire Gitsham, a candidate selected from outside the Australian Public Service (she was a partner at Thomson Geer prior to being selected to fill the Executive Level 2 National Judicial Registrar vacancy), was handed an Executive Level 2 National Judicial Registrar role without a merit based selection process for the vacancy she came to fill. Therefore, there is no record of reasons for decision (by a selection panel or otherwise) to select Claire Gitsham to fill the Executive Level 2 National Judicial Registrar vacancy, which was made in the course a merit based selection process for the Executive Level 2 National Judicial Registrar role that Claire Gitsham was selected to fill. The document does not exist.

It follows, ineluctably, that your claims that I must pay a fee to access non-existent documents is a sham, much like the decision the nameless FOI officer made to me when I requested access to documents relating to Susan O’Connor’s selection as a Senior Executive Band 1 National Judicial Registrar.

In your letter of decision, you state:

“In your email dated 19 September 2022 you state:

‘I have seen an external disclosure made under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013, which included Kate McMullan’s report issued under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013. Don’t try to lie your way through this. I was lied to about the existence of documents and the need to pay for those documents by the FOI Officer. I called this liar’s bluff. B Henderson conceded as much: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/d...
27675.’

I do not agree with your unsubstantiated allegation that a FOI Officer of the Court lied to you in relation to a different FOI request you recently submitted. There is no evidence to support this statement. Further, I disagree that any concession was made in my decision in relation to that FOI request.”

Bollocks. The evidence is right here: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/d....

I suppose the FOI officer who, on 8 August 2022, insisted that I had to pay $35 (https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/d...) to access non-existent documents (non-existent because, on 13 September 2022, you wrote to me to me and said “I have decided, pursuant to subsection 24A(1) of the FOI Act, to refuse your request for access to documents as I am satisfied that all reasonable steps have been taken to find the documents you have requested, but the documents cannot be found or do not exist. I have also decided, pursuant to section 29 of the FOI Act, that the charge as set out in the letter from the Court to you dated 8 August 2022 should not be imposed. Pursuant to section 29 of the FOI Act, I find that you are not liable to pay either the deposit or the charge estimated in the letter dated 8 August 2022.” - See https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/d...) was just telling the truth about the my having to pay the Court money to access documents that did not exist. Your claims are as convincing as the Donald’s claims that the election was stolen from him. You do realise that your statements will remain publicly accessible so long as this website remains active don’t you? Well done Mrs Trump.

I seek internal 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/d...

Yours faithfully,

Ray B1

External FOI, Federal Court of Australia

OFFICIAL
Dear Ray B1,

I acknowledge receipt of your request below for an internal review of the decision made on behalf of the Federal Court of Australia and dated 19 October 2022.

Kind regards,

FOI Officer
Federal Court of Australia

show quoted sections

External FOI, Federal Court of Australia

2 Attachments

OFFICIAL
Dear Ray B1

Please find attached correspondence from the Federal Court of Australia.

Kind regards

FOI Officer
Federal Court of Australia

show quoted sections

Federal Court of Australia

 
 
  [1]Office of the Australian Information Reference Code:  
Commissioner ICR_10-51748737-3218
 

 
You submitted a form called: FOI Review_
 
Your form reference code is: ICR_10-51748737-3218

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]

Dear Ms Hammerton Cole,

I have applied for IC review of your internal review decision.

In your letter of 18 November 2022 you state:

"In relation to you internal review request, I note that you make several derogatory and inappropriate remarks within that request including, for example, asserting that the original decision-maker is 'lying'. Your request also contains offensive language which I will not repeat here. I ask that you refrain from using such language and making such remarks in future correspondence with the Court."

With respect to your claim that I have made an inappropriate remark by demonstrating how an FOI official in the Federal Court lied, I welcome you to dispel the truth of my assertion or to retract your plainly unsupportable claim that there my demonstration of that fact is inappropriate. It is demonstrably the case that I was lied to and nothing to the contrary has been demonstrated.

With respect to your claim that my internal review request “contains offensive language”, I take it that you object to the use of the word “bollocks”.

During debates on the European Union (Withdrawal) Act on 10 January 2019, the Right Honourable Michael Gove, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, stated:

“The Labour party has had 16 different positions, and they cannot ask a question that is put 23 times. They do have six tests, but what do those six tests mean? Well, let’s listen to the words of the shadow International Trade Secretary, the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), when he was asked about those six tests. He summed them up pithily in a word which in Spanish translates as ‘cojones’ and in English rhymes with ‘rollocks.’ I know, Mr Speaker, that there are some distinguished citizens in this country who have put on their cars a poster or sticker saying ‘Bollocks to Brexit’, but we now know from Labour’s own Front Bench that its official Brexit position is ‘bollocks.’ [Interruption.] I am quoting directly from the hon. Member for Brent North, and I am sorry that he is not in his usual position, because it is not the role of the Government to intervene in how the Opposition dispose of their positions but I have to say that the shadow International Trade Secretary is a jewel and an ornament to the Labour Front Bench: he speaks the truth with perfect clarity, and in his description of Labour’s own policy may I say that across the House we are grateful to him—grateful to the constant Gardiner for the way in which he has cast light on the testicular nature of Labour’s position?”

Sir Edward Davey, the Member for Kingston and Surbiton interjected with:

“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Have you made a new ruling on parliamentary language that I am not aware of?”

The Speaker of the House of Commons ruled:

“I have made no new ruling on parliamentary language. I was listening, as colleagues would expect, with my customary rapt attention to the observations of the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs I richly enjoyed those observations and particularly his exceptionally eloquent delivery of them, which I feel sure he must have been practising in front of the mirror for some significant number of hours, but on the subject of that which is orderly—because a number of Members were chuntering from a sedentary position about whether the use of the word beginning with b and ending in s which the Secretary of State delighted in regaling the House with was orderly—the answer is that there was nothing disorderly about the use of the word; I think it is a matter of taste.”

(see Hansard, Series 6, Volume 652, Columns 580-581)

If a word is good enough to be used on the floor of the House of Commons, then it’s good enough for this commoner. So sorry that Your Ladyship takes offence to a word not characterised as unparliamentary language. If you and your chums were half as committed to honest and transparent decision making under the FOI Act as you were to being priggish, I wouldn’t have to call out the “word beginning with b and ending in s” of the Federal Court’s officials.

Best of luck convincing the FOI Commissioner that the documents that you claim are within the scope of my FOI request are reasonably within scope.

Yours faithfully,

Ray B1

Federal Court of Australia

1 Attachment

Our reference: MR22/01847

 

By email: [FOI #9341 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 MR22/01847.

 

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.

We don't know whether the most recent response to this request contains information or not – if you are Ray B1 please sign in and let everyone know.