FOI Request for Detail Incident Report 1-2RIU6K

Ben Fairless made this Freedom of Information request to Department of Home Affairs

The request was successful.

From: Ben Fairless

Delivered

To the Department of Immigration and Border Protection,

Dear Sir/Madam,

Under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) I request the following document:

Incident Detail Report 1-2RIU6K from the Department's Compliance, Case Management, Detention and Settlement Portal. I also request any documents attached to the detailed report.

Kind Regards,

Ben Fairless

Link to this

From: FOI


Attachment Ben Fairless FA 14 04 00093 Acknowledgement of FOI Request.pdf
164K Download View as HTML


UNCLASSIFIED

Our references: FA 14/04/00093; ADF2014/11552

 

Dear Mr Fairless,

 

Please find attached the acknowledgement of receipt for your recent FOI
Request.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Isheeka Goswami
Privacy Administrative Officer

FOI and Privacy Policy
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
Telephone: (02) 6198 7525
Email: [1][email address]

 

UNCLASSIFIED

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]

Link to this

From: FOI


Attachment FA 14.04.00093 s.29 Charge Notice.pdf
489K Download View as HTML

Attachment Attachment CCAF Form.doc
1.3M Download View as HTML

Attachment mg info.txt
0K Download View as HTML


UNCLASSIFIED

Our references: FA 14/04/00093; ADF2014/11552

 

Dear Mr Fairless,

 

I am writing in regards to your FOI request seeking:  

 

Incident Detail Report 1-2RIU6K from the Department's Compliance, Case
Management, Detention and Settlement Portal. I also request any documents
attached to the detailed report.

 

This email is to advise you of my decision that you are liable to pay a
charge in respect of the processing of your FOI request in accordance with
s.29 of the FOI Act.  

 

Please see the attached notice for further information.  

 

Timeframe for a response

 

The Act provides you with 30 days to respond, in writing, to this notice,
which is Saturday 10 May 2014.  However, as this date falls on a
non-working day, s.36(2) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 provides that
the latest date you may respond is the next working day, which is Monday
12 May 2014.

 

How to pay:

 

Include your FA Reference number.  The payment can be made by cheque,
money order or credit card.

 

Cheques and money orders should be made payable to "Collector of Public
Monies" and sent to:

 

FOI & Privacy Policy Section

Department of Immigration and Border Protection

PO Box 25

BELCONNEN  ACT  2616

AUSTRALIA

 

Should you choose to pay by credit card, please fill out the attached
credit card authorisation form and forward to FOI & Privacy Policy Section
at the above address, or email to [1][DIBP request email]. 

 

Your Sincerely

Janelle

__________________________________

Janelle Raineri

Authorised FOI Decision Maker

A/g Assistant Director

FOI & Privacy Policy Section
Department of Immigration and Border Protection

Email: [2][DIBP request email]

 

UNCLASSIFIED

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[DIBP request email]
2. mailto:[DIBP request email]

Link to this

From: Ben Fairless

Delivered

Dear Department of Immigration and Border Protection,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Department of Immigration and Border Protection's handling of my FOI request 'FOI Request for Detail Incident Report 1-2RIU6K'.

The Department has made a decision to charge $9.90 for 0.66 hours of Retrieval Time. The Department has advised that the only way to make payment for this amount is via Cheque, Money Order, or via an unsecured, unencrypted, plain text form containing my Credit Card details.

Having researched what a money order is (I am 22, and as such have not heard of them since getting interested in FOI) I have found that the cost of a Money Order is $8.95 which nearly doubles the amount requested by the Department[1]

The issuance of a Bank Cheque (I do not possess a Cheque Book like most of my generation) from my Bank (CBA) is $10.00[2]. This is more than the cost of the FOI request!

The provision of my Credit Card Details on an unencrypted MS Word Document could render me liable for unauthorised charges incurred if my Credit Card Details were to be intercepted in sending them to the Department.

I refer the department to s3(4) of the Freedom of Information Act:

"The Parliament also intends that functions and powers given by this Act are to be performed and exercised, as far as possible, to facilitate and promote public access to information, promptly and at the lowest reasonable cost."

I contend that opening an applicant to unreasonable risk, or providing payment methods that cost over 90% more than the requested charges does not help to "facilitate and promote access to public information".

In addition to the above issue raised, I also argue that the Department is not acting in reasonable good faith in processing this application. I shall detail my reasons for this argument below.

The Department appears to change its tactics to add an additional step to prevent the release of information or to deter applicants from making requests such as the one I am making.

Firstly, requests for different incident reports were grouped together under s24(2) of the Act[3] and were treated as a single request. The Department used a form letter to advise applicants that their requests (all for different documents with different reference numbers) were grouped together and treated as a single request.

Then, the Department used s15(c) of the Act to contend that the unique email address used by Right to Know was not a valid email address [4]. This caused Right to Know to change its internal code [5] to "close" this issue.

Now, as the Department can't use s15(c) and can't use s24 (2) to delay a request, the Department seeks to impose a charge that, if paid using a method described by the Department, will either make the Applicant liable for unauthorised credit card transactions or cost the applicant a comparatively significant amount in time and effort to process.

It is on the above basis that I contend that no charge should be imposed.

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

Yours faithfully,

Ben Fairless

[1] http://auspost.com.au/money-insurance/do...
[2] https://www.commbank.com.au/personal/app...
[3] https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/1...
[4] https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/f...
[5] https://github.com/openaustralia/rightto...

Link to this

From: FOI

UNCLASSIFIED
 
Our references: FA 14/04/00093; ADF2014/11552
 
Dear Mr Fairless
 
Thank you for your email setting out your concerns. I have addressed each
separately below.
 
Charges: contributions towards processing FOI requests
It may assist you to know that the Department routinely assesses FOI
requests for charges under s.29 of the Freedom of Information Act 1982
(the Act) and issues a ‘charges notice’ to the relevant applicant.
 
While I acknowledge that the objects of the Act state that access should
be provided ‘at the lowest reasonable cost’, I also note that Parliament
intends that, where an FOI applicant seeks information other than their
own personal information, those applicants should contribute towards the
processing of their request.
 
The regime for imposing charges is contained in ss.29 and 31 of the Act
and the Freedom of Information (Charges) Regulations 1982 (the
Regulations). The regime has been part of the Commonwealth FOI process
since its inception in 1982. The FOI Act underwent significant reform and
amendment in 2010 and the charges process remained unchanged. This
suggests that Parliament currently accepts that the current charges regime
provides access ‘at the lowest reasonable cost’.
 
To recap - the first step in the charges process is for the decision maker
to assess the request for charges. If the decision maker reaches the view
that the agency should impose a charge, the decision maker will prepare
and send a ‘charges notice’ to the applicant. The notice must comply with
s.29(1) of the Act. The notice must advise the applicant that they must,
within 30 days from the date they are ‘notified’ of the charge either (a)
pay the charge or deposit, or (b) ‘contend’ in writing that the charge
should be reduced or ‘not imposed’ (ie waived) or (c) withdraw the
request.
 
Under the various laws of the Commonwealth, email communications are taken
to have been received when they reach the recipient’s server, which is
normally almost instantaneous. Therefore FOI applicants are generally
taken to have been ‘notified’ of the charge on the day the email is sent.
 
Reconsideration of Ms Raineri’s notice
I have considered the contents of Ms Raineri’s charges notice and am
satisfied that the notice complies with s.29(1) of the Act and is a valid
notice. Therefore, you are bound, under the Act, to respond (in writing)
to the notice in one of the three ways set out in the notice and explained
above.
 
If you contend that Ms Raineri should reduce or waive the charge and she
decides to impose the charge instead, you will be issued with a decision
under s.29(8) of the Act and will be able to seek internal review of Ms
Raineri’s decision on your contentions.
 
Privacy concerns about RTK website and communications with agencies
The matter that you have raised is an example of the Department’s concerns
about the use of the RTK facility for the service of legal notices. These
concerns contributed to the Department’s decision to confirm with
applicants that they wished the Department to use the RTK email address as
the nominated address for 'sending notices to under the Act'  (s.15(2)(c)
of the Act). Communications that one would expect to be otherwise private
between an agency and an FOI applicant are visible for the world to see.
 
As you know that your credit card details will be visible to anyone who
visits this website and have concerns about them being accessed, there are
two other options for payment which other RTK applicants have used that
you may wish to consider. You can send the physically signed CCAF(form)
from a different email address or you can send it via Australia Post. If
you do this, you will not be disadvantaged financially.
 
Timeframe for written response
Please note that you must ensure that either your contentions regarding
the charges imposed or your payment reach the Department before the end of
the 30-day period advised under the charges notice (Monday 12 May 2014).
If the Department has not received your response by close of business that
day, the Act will deem your request to have been ‘withdrawn’ by you
(s.29(2) of the Act) and the Department will be under no further
obligation to process this request.
 
Regards
 
Linda Rossiter
Director
FOI and Privacy Policy
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
 
 

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: Ben Fairless

Delivered

Dear Linda Rossiter,

I refer to your email received today in response my request for Internal Review made via the Right to Know website.

I note on page 3 of the letter issued by the Department[1] that I can request an internal Review of the decision to issue charges. I believe that my email to you on the 10th of April 2014[2] makes it clear that I am requesting an internal review of the decision made by the department.

Notwithstanding my request for Internal Review (which I still consider valid), I further contend that the charges should not be imposed for the reasons stated in my email to the Department on the 10th of April 2014[2] and for the reasons detailed below. Please note, I reserve the right to make further contentions that a charge should not be imposed.

\\ Response to your concerns about RTK //
I refute your statement that I am concerned about my Credit Card details being accessed via Right to Know. I am concerned about my email being intercepted in transit, or the Department mishandling my Credit Card information (Do I really need to remind you that you can't even keep your clients details safe - http://goo.gl/qkUcQq).

\\ Sending Credit Card Details via email //
I would argue that requesting that anyone send their credit card details in an unencrypted format is frankly stupid. This does not just apply to Right to Know, but applies to ALL email communication.

An email can be intercepted at any stage during transmission and receipt and this does not apply specifically to RTK. This is why the Australian Government (via it's ScamWatch website) makes it clear that you should "Never send your personal, credit card or online account details through an email"[3]. ScamWatch isn't just referring to services like Right to Know, its referring to ALL email methods.

\\ Sending Credit Card Details via the Post //
In addition to the points raised regarding sending Credit Card details via email, I note that Australia Post is not considered a secure mail service. Writing down my Credit Card Number and Expiry date onto a piece of paper and letting that piece of paper leave my control could possibly constitute a breach of the Credit Card Terms of Use for my particular credit card.

\\ Summary //
In summary, the core reasons for my contention that charges should not be imposed are:
- The cost of acquiring a Bank Cheque or Money Order exceeds the cost of the request
- The sending of Credit Card details via ANY email service (not just RTK) or via the Post would be an unacceptable risk to my financial security.

Please be advised that I expressly reserve all rights, including the right to amend or add to the above contention should I consider it necessary.

Yours sincerely,

Ben Fairless

[1] https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/5...
[2] https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/f...
[3] http://www.scamwatch.gov.au/content/inde...

Link to this

From: FOI

UNCLASSIFIED

Dear Mr Fairless

I refer to your correspondence below about your request for an internal review of the decision to apply charges. I note that your concerns as outlined below relate to the ability for you to make a secure payment via credit card, or the inevitability of incurring additional charges if you apply for a money order or bank cheque as a method of payment.

Following receipt of your email I made further enquiries with our Finance area and have been advised that the department does have a bank account into which you may make a secure funds transfer. If you wish to proceed with payment I can send you the necessary details and we will be amending our processes accordingly.

Alternatively please advise if you wish to proceed with the request for internal review.

Regards

Linda Rossiter
Director
FOI and Privacy Policy
Department of Immigration and Border Protection

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: Ben Fairless

Delivered

Dear Linda Rossiter,

I am delighted to find out that the Department has discovered and implemented EFT as a solution for the receipt of payments (I think my mother used it for the first time in 1999, I'm glad the Department is catching up). I trust that the Department will make this option clearly available next time it issues a charges letter!

If you send me the EFT details, I am happy to arrange for payment via this method and you can consider my request for Internal Review withdrawn. I obviously reserve the right to make a further request for Internal Review should this be required going forward.

Yours sincerely,

Ben Fairless

Link to this

From: FOI

UNCLASSIFIED

Our reference: FA 14/04/00093, ADF2014/11552

Dear Mr Fairless

The bank account details you require are as follows:

• Bank: CBA
• BSB: 062987
• Account Number: 10016044
• Account Name: DIBP Official Administered Direct Credit Receipts Account.

When making the transfer you will need to quote the number of your request - FA 14 04 00093 - so that your payment can be identified by our Finance area. Failure to do so may result in payments not being identified as FOI related and could result in processing delays.

Please advise FOI when you have made the payment made by direct credit so that we can contact the Finance area and they can issue a receipt. You should also be aware that payments by direct credit are not processed in real time. There is at least a one day delay between somebody paying money into the department's account and notification of the payment via our bank account statement.

I note that you have withdrawn your request for review.

Regards

Linda Rossiter
Director
FOI and Privacy Policy
Department of Immigration and Border Protection

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: Ben Fairless

Delivered

Dear Linda,

Payment has been sent today for $9.90 via EFT.

Yours sincerely,

Ben Fairless

Link to this

From: FOI

UNCLASSIFIED

Dear Mr Fairless

Thankyou for confirming payment. We will resume processing your request which is now due on 11 May 2014.

Regards

Linda Rossiter
Director
FOI and Privacy Policy
Department of Immigration and Border Protection

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: FOI

UNCLASSIFIED

Our reference: FA 14/04/00093, ADF2014/11552

 

Dear Mr Fairless

 

The department’s Finance area processes payments made in relation to FOI
requests and provide applicant’s with a receipt for payment.  Receipts can
be sent via post or email.

 

I am writing to you to seek your advice on how you would like to receive
the receipt. The department can send the receipt via the Right to Know
email address you have provided, however you can nominate a different
email account or mail address for the purpose of the department providing
you with a receipt.

 

Please provide your advice on how you wish to receive a copy of this
receipt by close of business Monday 5 May 2014.

 

Yours Sincerely

Janelle

 

__________________________________

Janelle Raineri

FOI Inbox Manager

FOI & Privacy Policy Section
Department of Immigration and Border Protection

Email: [1][DIBP request email]

 

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: Ben Fairless

Delivered

Dear Janelle,

Happy for the receipt to be sent to [email address]. Please note that the RTK email address remains valid for the purposes of s15(2)(c) of the FOI Act.

Yours sincerely,

Ben Fairless

Link to this

From: FOI

UNCLASSIFIED

Our reference: FA 14/04/00093, ADF2014/11552

 

Dear Mr Fairless

 

Thank you for your prompt response.

 

I have provided your nominated contact details for delivery of your
receipt to our Finance area who will process the payment.  The Finance
area will send you your receipt.

 

All correspondence regarding your FOI request will continue to be sent to
the Right to Know website.

 

Yours Sincerely

Janelle

__________________________________

Janelle Raineri

FOI Inbox Manager

FOI & Privacy Policy Section
Department of Immigration and Border Protection

Email: [1][DIBP request email]

 

 

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: FOI


Attachment Decision letter.pdf
339K Download View as HTML

Attachment Decision Record.pdf
426K Download View as HTML

Attachment FA 14 03 00093 1 2RIU6K Incident Detail Report.pdf
113K Download View as HTML

Attachment Schedule of Documents.pdf
119K Download View as HTML


UNCLASSIFIED

Our references: FA 14/04/00093; ADF2014/11552

 

Dear Mr Fairless,

 

I refer to your FOI request received on 28 March 2014 seeking access to
the following:

 

Incident Detail Report 1-2RIU6K from the Department's Compliance, Case
Management, Detention and Settlement Portal. I also request any documents
attached to the detailed report.

 

I have made a final decision on this request.

 

Please see attached my signed Decision Letter, Decision Record, and
Schedule of Documents and documents released under the FOI Act.    

 

This request has now been closed.

 

Regards

 

Kenneth Truelsen

Authorised decision maker

Position number 60008751

FOI and Privacy Policy Section

Ministerial, Executive and External Accountability Branch

Department of Immigration and Border Protection

Telephone          6264 1406

Email                     [DIBP request email]

UNCLASSIFIED

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: Ben Fairless

Delivered

Dear Department of Immigration and Border Protection,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Department of Immigration and Border Protection's handling of my FOI request 'FOI Request for Detail Incident Report 1-2RIU6K' for the following reasons:

\\ s.47F(1) Exemption //
The Decision Maker as refused access to the below fields under a s.47F(1) exemption:
- Participation Type
- Minor (Y/N)
- Client was Armed (Y/N)
- Comments

I contend that the release of the above information is not "Personal Information" as it does not provide the ability for a member of the public to identify an individual from this information.

The Department also seeks to censor on page 2 a location, which I assume to be an Immigration Department facility. I contend that the release of this information will not allow the client to be identified.

As the information will not allow the individual to be identified, I contend that a s.47F(1) does NOT apply in relation to the above material.

\\ s. 22(1)(a)(ii) Exemption //
The decision maker has exempted material which he identifies as not being relevant to my request. As my request was for the Incident Report, and the Incident Report is what was provided, there is no reason to exempt any material as irrelevant.

I contend that the information withheld under s.22(1)(a)(ii) should be released on the basis that is is not exempt.

\\Summary//
I remind the Department of its obligations to respond as soon as practical, but no later then 30 days from today. I respectfully request that the Department issue a decision as soon as practical.

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

Yours faithfully,

Ben Fairless

Link to this

From: FOI

UNCLASSIFIED

Our references: FA 14/04/00093-R1; ADF2014/11552

 

Dear Mr Fairless

 

Thank you for your request for an internal review of the access decision
for FA 14/04/00093received on 15 May 2014.

 

Please note the new references for your internal review at the top of this
email for future reference.

 

The standard processing of an internal review is 30 days.

 

Regards

Janelle

 

__________________________________

Janelle Raineri

FOI Inbox Manager

FOI & Privacy Policy Section
Department of Immigration and Border Protection

Email: [1][DIBP request email]

 

 

UNCLASSIFIED

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[DIBP request email]

Link to this

From: FOI

UNCLASSIFIED

Our references: FA 14/04/00093-R1; ADF2014/11552

 

 

Mr Ben Fairless

 

By email: [1][FOI #574 email]  

 

 

Re: Your request for internal review of a decision under the Freedom of
Information Act 1982

 

I am writing to advise you that I have been appointed as the authorised
decision maker on your request for internal review of the decision
notified to you on Friday 9 May 2014 (FA 14/04/00093), by Mr Kenneth
Truelsen. 

 

Mr Truelsen’s decision was in response to your request to the Department
of Immigration and Border Protection (the Department) under s.15 of the
Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the Act) for:

 

‘Incident Detail Report 1-2RIU6K from the Department's Compliance, Case
Management, Detention and Settlement Portal. I also request any documents
attached to the detailed report.’

 

Mr Truelsen released the document he identified as falling within the
scope of your request. Mr Truelsen deleted information that he was
satisfied was exempt under s.47F(1) of the Act. He also deleted
information that he considered irrelevant to your request, under
s.22(1)(a)(ii) of the Act.

 

I will now consider the elements of your request for internal review.

 

Terms of your review request

 

You advised the Department:

 

‘I am writing to request an internal review of Department of Immigration
and Border Protection's handling of my FOI request 'FOI Request for Detail
Incident Report 1-2RIU6K' for the following reasons:

 

\\ s.47F(1) Exemption //

The Decision Maker as refused access to the below fields under a s.47F(1)
exemption:

- Participation Type

- Minor (Y/N)

- Client was Armed (Y/N)

- Comments

 

I contend that the release of the above information is not "Personal
Information" as it does not provide the ability for a member of the public
to identify an individual from this information.

 

The Department also seeks to censor on page 2 a location, which I assume
to be an Immigration Department facility. I contend that the release of
this information will not allow the client to be identified.

 

As the information will not allow the individual to be identified, I
contend that a s.47F(1) does NOT apply in relation to the above material.

 

\\ s. 22(1)(a)(ii) Exemption //

The decision maker has exempted material which he identifies as not being
relevant to my request. As my request was for the Incident Report, and the
Incident Report is what was provided, there is no reason to exempt any
material as irrelevant.

 

I contend that the information withheld under s.22(1)(a)(ii) should be
released on the basis that is is not exempt.

 

\\Summary//

I remind the Department of its obligations to respond as soon as
practical, but no later then 30 days from today. I respectfully request
that the Department issue a decision as soon as practical.’

 

I have interpreted your request for internal review to be that the
decision maker:

 

1.    did not correctly interpret and apply s.47F(1) of the Act to the
information in the document; and

2.    did not interpret the scope of your request correctly and so
incorrectly deleted information under s.22(1)(a)(ii) of the Act that was
relevant to the scope of your request.

 

I will now consider your internal review request against the validity
elements in the Act.

 

Validity elements for an internal review request

 

For an internal review request to be valid, it must be a request to review
an ‘access refusal’ decision or an ‘access grant’ decision. Section 53A of
the Act defines ‘access refusal decision’ to include:

 

A decision refusing to give access to a document in accordance with a
request. (s.53A(a) of the Act)

 

I am satisfied that Mr Truelsen’s decision meets the definition of an
‘access refusal’ decision in s.53A(a) of the Act.

 

Further, s.54(2) of the Act provides that an applicant may apply to the
agency for internal review of an access refusal decision providing the
decision was not made by the ‘principal officer of the agency’ (ie the
Secretary of the Department). I am satisfied that the decision was made by
an authorised decision maker, Mr Truelsen, and not by the principal
officer of the agency.

 

The decision was notified to you on Friday 9 May 2014. Internal review
requests must be in writing and submitted within 30 days of being notified
of the original decision (s.54B(1) of the Act). You submitted your written
request for internal review to the Department on Thursday 15 May 2015,
which was within the 30 days as required.

 

Therefore, I am satisfied that your request meets the validity
requirements for seeking internal review of the access refusal decision.

 

Things to note about the internal review

 

Where an agency receives a valid request for internal review of an access
refusal or access grant decision, the agency is bound, under s.54C(2) of
the Act, to ‘as soon as practicable arrange for a person to review the
decision’. I have been appointed as the review officer and so the
Department has satisfied its obligations under s.54C(2) of the Act.

 

Section 54C(3) of the Act provides that the review officer must make a
‘fresh decision’ on the original request rather than conducting a review
of the merits of the original decision. Section 54C(3) also provides that
the decision must be made ‘within 30 days after the day on which the
application was received by…the agency’.

 

Therefore, under the Act, I must make the decision by Saturday 14 June
2014. However, as this is non-working day, s.36(2) of the Acts
Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) provides that the Department may provide the
decision on the next working day, which is Monday 16 June 2014.   

 

I note that, where an agency exceeds the 30 day statutory period for
responding to an internal review request, the agency may apply to the
Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) under s.54D(3) of
the Act for an extension of time to bring the request back into time. This
provision allows agencies to balance competing demands on the Department’s
resources.

 

I will write to you again if it appears that the Department intends to
seek an extension of time under s.54D(3) of the Act. Otherwise, you will
receive my decision by the due date, which is Monday 16 June 2014.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Angela O’Neil

Authorised decision maker

FOI & Privacy Policy Section

Ministerial, Executive & External Accountability Branch

Department of Immigration and Border Protection

 

Email: [2][DIBP request email]

UNCLASSIFIED

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[FOI #574 email]
2. mailto:[DIBP request email]

Link to this

From: FOI


Attachment Fairless review decision FA 140400093R1.pdf
1.9M Download View as HTML

Attachment Attachment D 1 2RIU6K Incident Detail Report for release with watermark.pdf
532K Download View as HTML


UNCLASSIFIED

Our references: FA 14/04/00093-R1; ADF2014/11552

 

 

Mr Ben Fairless

 

By email: [1][FOI #574 email]  

 

 

Re: Your request for internal review of a decision under the Freedom of
Information Act 1982

 

I am writing to advise you that I have been appointed as the authorised
decision maker on your request for internal review of the decision
notified to you on Friday 9 May 2014 (FA 14/04/00093), by Mr Kenneth
Truelsen. 

 

Mr Truelsen’s decision was in response to your request to the Department
of Immigration and Border Protection (the Department) under s.15 of the
Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the Act) for:

 

‘Incident Detail Report 1-2RIU6K from the Department's Compliance, Case
Management, Detention and Settlement Portal. I also request any documents
attached to the detailed report.’

 

Mr Truelsen released the document he identified as falling within the
scope of your request. Mr Truelsen deleted information that he was
satisfied was exempt under s.47F(1) of the Act. He also deleted
information that he considered irrelevant to your request, under
s.22(1)(a)(ii) of the Act.

 

Please find my internal review decision attached, in addition to the
relevant document. This review is now closed in the Department’s systems.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

Angela O’Neil

Authorised decision maker

FOI & Privacy Policy Section

Ministerial, Executive & External Accountability Branch

Department of Immigration and Border Protection

 

Email: [DIBP request email]

 

 

UNCLASSIFIED

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[FOI #574 email]

Link to this

From: Ben Fairless

Delivered

Dear Angela,

I refer to your Internal Review Decision Letter issued June 16 2014.

I note that you have not made a decision on if the below items are "personal information" as defined under s4(1):
- Participation Type
- Minor (Y/N)
- Client was Armed (Y/N)
- Comments

It was my contention that the above information is not "personal infomation" as defined.

As you have not made a decision on this, I would appreciate your clarification prior to seeking review with the OAIC.

Yours sincerely,

Ben Fairless

Link to this

From: FOI

UNCLASSIFIED

Our references: FA 14/04/00093-R1; ADF2014/11552

 

 

Mr Ben Fairless

Via email: [1][FOI #574 email]

 

 

Dear Mr Fairless

 

Thank you for your email. As advised previously, I was required to make a
‘fresh decision’ on the document at internal review. My reasons are set
out in the decision letter.

 

If you are dissatisfied with the decision, your next step is to seek
external review by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner.
Information on how to do this can be found here
[2]http://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-inform... .

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

Angela O’Neil

Authorised decision maker

FOI & Privacy Policy Section

Ministerial, Executive & External Accountability Branch

Department of Immigration and Border Protection

 

Email: [DIBP request email]

 

 

show quoted sections

Link to this

Ben Fairless left an annotation ()

As suggested, I have made an application for IC Review for this decision.

Link to this

From: FOI


Attachment FA 140400093 Administrative Release 1 2RIU6K Incident Detail Report Redacted.pdf
92K Download View as HTML


UNCLASSIFIED

Our References: FA 14/04/00093; ADF2014/11552

 

Dear Mr Fairless,

 

Please find the attached document released following completion of
MR14/00257 by the Information Commissioner.

 

Regards

 

Steven Hocking

Assistant Director

FOI & Privacy Policy Section

Parliamentary & Executive Coordination Branch | Immigration and Border

Protection Portfolio

T: 02 6264 1007

E: [1][DIBP request email]  

 

UNCLASSIFIED

Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please
advise
the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately.  This
email,
including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally
privileged
and/or copyright information.  Any review, retransmission, dissemination
or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the
intended recipient is prohibited.  DIBP respects your privacy and has
obligations under the Privacy Act 1988.  The official departmental privacy
policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au.  See:
http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privac...

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[DIBP request email]

Link to this

From: Ben Fairless

Delivered

Dear Steven,

I wasn't aware that MR14/00257 had been finalised. Do you have a copy of the decision letter from OAIC that you could send me?

Yours sincerely,

Ben Fairless

Link to this

From: FOI

UNCLASSIFIED

Dear Mr Fairless,

The Information Commissioner has not provided a final copy of the review to the Department. They have asked the department to consider an administrative release of the document, which we have provided to you. They have been advised of the department's intention to release the document to you administratively (outside the FOI Act). It is my understanding that they would contact you regarding the release of information. I believe they would be best placed to provide you with any documents you are seeking.

Regards

Steven Hocking
Assistant Director
FOI & Privacy Policy Section
Parliamentary & Executive Coordination Branch | Immigration and Border Protection Portfolio
T: 02 6264 1007
E: [email address]

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: Ben Fairless

Delivered

Dear Steven,

Thanks for confirming that. I note that the Department has released the same document with the same exclusions as last time (unless I'm missing something). Is this correct?

Yours sincerely,

Ben Fairless

Link to this

From: FOI

UNCLASSIFIED

Dear Mr Fairless,

The document released to you contains additional information. You are now able to see information contained in the following fields: "Participation type", "Client was armed" and "Comments". The original decision provided to you did not show that information.

Regards

Steven Hocking
Assistant Director
FOI & Privacy Policy Section
Parliamentary & Executive Coordination Branch | Immigration and Border Protection Portfolio
T: 02 6264 1007
E: [email address]

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: Ben Fairless

Delivered

Dear Steven,

Sorry, I couldn't see that, it was difficult comparing the PDFs on my mobile phone. Thanks for your assistance.

Yours sincerely,

Ben Fairless

Link to this

Things to do with this request

Anyone:
Department of Home Affairs only: