The request must be refused but to get the information is easy. Section 12(1)(b) of the FOI Act (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/c...) says that you cannot get access under FOI to documents that you can get easily if you pay for them. Company and business registration is easy to get from ASIC but you must pay. So, ASIC will refuse the application.

Good news is also here. You can easily see that the Commonwealth is registered to business in Australia. You can look here (abr.business.gov.au/SearchByAbn.aspx?abn=61970632495) for example. You can also search for the ABN of any other department of the Commonwealth Government. Each department name is registered as a trading name for the Commonwealth. Also abbreviations like DEEWR (http://abr.business.gov.au/SearchByAbn.a...) are registered for business.

Thanks Locutus Sum. The subsidiary companies such as the ones you linked to (DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION EMPLOYMENT AND WORKPLACE RELATIONS, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND DEREGULATION) are viewable in the public view of the Australian Business Register (ABR). The "COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA", the parent company is not.

The parent company is listed as a Non Registered Entity (Nret):
http://www.search.asic.gov.au/cgi-bin/gn......
https://connectonline.asic.gov.au/Regist...

The listed documents there that require payment to view are not what I would like clarification on.

I would like to see the ASIC guidelines that grants the company: COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA registered with U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ASIC (CIK: 0000805157) to do business in Australia without registration in Australia.

Correction: "U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)" not "U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ASIC " (as in previous annotation)

It was predictable.

It is worthwhile to read the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/c...) and the Corporations Act 2001 (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/c...).

"For your information, there is no obligation on the Commonwealth to register under any legislation administered by ASIC."

This suggests that the Commonwealth of Australia is not subject to the ASIC terms or ASIC guidelines when doing business in Australia. The Commonwealth of Australia is listed in ASIC records doing business in Australia with the Telstra 3 Share Offer in 2006 (http://www2.search.asic.gov.au/cgi-bin/o...)

Sophia Wrightman left an annotation (November 01, 2013)
Hi Sonia, I did this in 2011. I have conformation that they are a foreign registered company from ASIC.
However for them to step outside ASIC guidelines you have to show they have conducted business here.
Their 14000 subsidiary companies have . But the corporation as themselves?
Thats the issue at hand.
And the answer is yes. When they took telecom or telstra from public ownership to privatisation it went into their name as the corporation itself.
which you will find on their prospectus at USSEC

Anyhow thats what ASIC isnt being straightforward about.
Hope it helps you,
Dave (can be found on southernfreeman.com)

"For your information, there is no obligation on the "Commonwealth to register under any legislation administered by ASIC."

This suggests that the Commonwealth of Australia is not subject to the ASIC terms or ASIC guidelines when doing business in Australia. The Commonwealth of Australia is listed in ASIC records doing business in Australia with the Telstra 3 Share Offer in 2006 (http://www2.search.asic.gov.au/cgi-bin/o...)

Link to this

A better question might be - if they did business here, would they not be obligated to register here as per your legislation

It looks as if this is intended to be a request for Internal Review. But, if it is a request for Internal Review, it is helpful to the agency (and to you) if you say so very clearly. I do not think that the expression "Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews" is a request for review. It is a request to have your email transmitted to another person. You will think that I am being pedantic but the Act is very precise.

It is also important and helpful to tell the agency what decision there is that you want them to review. It is not reasonable to make the agency look at webpages so it can discover your reviewable decision.

I looked at the letter that was sent for you. You could reply and say, "On 16 October I applied for access to ... . On 28 October you refused to give me access because, you said, the document I want does not exist or it can not be found. " And then it would be helpful to tell the ASIC for what reason you think that the document should be found. Maybe, for example, you think that they did not look in the right places, or maybe they looked for the wrong document because they did not understand your request, or they did not search on the computer with the correct terms for a search.

My reason for these suggestions is because people on Right to Know very often appear to become angry with government departments when the departments do exactly what the applicant says but it is not what the applicant wants.

Please accept my suggestion. It will only need to be a short follow-on email to ASIC.

"I have spoken" - this was a way to clarify the previous request for an internal review to assist ASIC in providing specific information. It doesn't stand alone as a request. If ASIC and myself are talking about different entities, this needs to be stated clearly. I request only information on the entity that is listed in US SEC as linked above. I am not requesting information of any other entity with a similar name. If a response by ASIC regards a different entity that is not relevant to this request in any previous or future responses, that information is inaccurate. I request accurate information rather than inaccurate information hence the note of clarification to assist ASIC in that regard.

Hello,

I have removed an abusive annotation on this request. Threatening and abusive behaviour is unacceptable on Right To Know.

Please ensure annotations meet our moderation policy (https://www.righttoknow.org.au/help/requ...) and don't hesitate to contact us if you'd like to bring something to our attention (https://www.righttoknow.org.au/help/cont...).

Let's all be awesome to each other and focus on what this site's about - helping open up our government through FOI.

Cheers,

Henare
Right To Know administrator

The decision maker has been very kind to give more explanation and not only to say, "No, the document does not exist".

You might ask why he says, "there was no obligation for the Commonwealth of Australia to "register" under any legislation administered by ASIC ..." . The answer is that in very many cases, it must be assumed that the Commonwealth (the Crown) is "not bound" by its own laws. I remind always of the divine right of Kings, for which reason Charles I lost his head! The book "Statutory Interpretation in Australia" written from DC Pearce and RS Geddes has some useful pages in the topic "Crown presumed not to be bound by statutes". I do not know what libraries have this book but also there is a good article it is possible to download "Options for the doctrine of Crown immunity in 21st century Australia" from Dr Anthony Gray. (It is at http://prints.usq.edu.au/5690/2/Gray_AJA... ) . Also there are some sections of Wikipedia on Sovereign Immunity.

For understanding the Commonwealth and corporations it can be informational (and confusing) to look at the Corporations Act (I gave links for austlii in another annotation). Section 5A is "Application to the Crown":
(2) Chapter 5 (expert Part 5.8) binds the Crown in right of the Commonwealth, or each of the States, of the Capital Territory, or the Northern Territory and of Norfolk Island.
(3) Chapters 6, 6A, 6B, 6C and 6D: (a) bind the Crown in right of the Commonwealth; and (b) do not bind the Crown in right of any State, of the Capital Territory, or the Northern Territory or of Norfolk Island.
(4) A provision of Chapter 5D, 6CA or 7 only binds the Crown in a particular capacity in circumstances (if any) specified in the regulations.
(5) Nothing in this Act makes the Crown in any right liable to a pecuniary penalty or to be prosecuted for an offence.

I put all of it here only for a reason to show it is not all so obvious.

Hello,

I've once again had to remove annotations on this request that did not meet our simple moderation policy: annotations are to help people get the information they want, or to give them pointers to places they can go to help them act on it. We reserve the right to remove anything else.

The Right To Know website is only for making, and helping other people make, FOI requests. There are thousands of other websites on the internet for people to discuss those requests - social networks like Facebook or Twitter, forums, comments sections, or your own blog.

As we suggest in our moderation policy (https://www.righttoknow.org.au/help/requ...), if you'd like to discuss the contents of a request, the facts presented in a request, or the validity of a government policy, you're most welcome to post an annotation with a link to a forum, campaign website, or social media page.

Unfortunately we'll have to disable further annotations on this request if these simple guidelines aren't followed.

Thank you,

Henare
Right To Know administrator

If you combine what Mr Grant Moodie has said and the section 5 of the Corporations Act, you can obtain the following.

The Commonwealth is not a corporation and also, because of the doctrine of sovereign immunity, the Commonwealth is mostly (but not always) not bound by its own laws. So the Commonwealth was not bound, overall, by the Corportations Act and it did not have any obligation to comply with many of the sections

But section 5A(3) ("Application to the Crown") of the Corportations Act says: "Chapters 6, 6A, 6B, 6C and 6D: (a) bind the Crown in right of the Commonwealth" so you can see that this explains why Mr Moodie has said "The Commonwealth was however subject to Chapter 6D ..."

Section 5A(4) says "A provision of Chapter 5D, 6CA or 7 only binds the Crown in a particular capacity in circumstances (if any) specified in the regulations." . In this manner you can see why Mr Moodie said "The Commonwealth was however subject to Chapter ... 7". There must be something in the regulations relevant to the Telstra Share offer. Of course, it is unnecessary for the regulations to speak exactly of a Telstra Share offer. Maybe they say only something about the sale of assets of the Commonwealth or another thing like that.

I did not look at the regulations for the Corporations Act. It is possible I think that you can find them at AustLII (http://www.austlii.edu.au) and also with the Commonwealth legislation site (http://www.comlaw.gov.au)

The Commonwealth of Australia is actually not listed as a "company" on the SEC website. When you look at the filings on that site, it files each year an "Annual report for foreign governments and political subdivisions". If you look up a company on the same SEC site (e.g. Apple Computer), they just file an "Annual report". So the SEC website correctly identifies the Commonwealth of Australia as being a "foreign government" rather than a "company".

Hi Mark - have a look at this link in SEC:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/8...

Under "Company Name:" is "COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA"

Locutus Sum, if the Commonwealth of Australia has sovereign immunity would indicate it being a Sovereign state. You're not saying it is a Sovereign state? The Crown is a Corporation sole, but seems the Commonwealth of Australia has an identity crisis especially in its capacity to make the Telstra offer.

Further another Black's law definition for body politic is:

"the term that applies to the people as a whole where each citizen agrees that it is to be governed by the common laws, rules and regulations."

Law Dictionary: http://thelawdictionary.org/body-politic-2

Implied is each and every Australian is an authority that agrees to be governed under terms a government needs to meet. And that this authority extends to an agreement with the Crown each Australian has (in right of the Commonwealth i.e. with our permission and consent) to hold our property in trust.

Would the sale of Telstra be a breech of trust?