FOI Request for Detail Incident Report 1-7AL08L

David Reid made this Freedom of Information request to Department of Home Affairs

The request was refused by Department of Home Affairs.

From: David Reid

Delivered

To the Department of Immigration and Citizenship,

Dear Sir/Madam,

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

Incident Detail Report 1-7AL08L from the Department's Compliance, Case Management, Detention and Settlement Portal. I also request any documents attached to the detailed report.

Kind Regards,

David Reid

Link to this

David Reid left an annotation ()

A summary of the incident that is the subject of this request can be found at http://detentionlogs.com.au/data/inciden...

Link to this

From: FOI


Attachment David Reid.pdf
123K Download View as HTML


UNCLASSIFIED

Good afternoon Mr Reid,

Please see the attached acknowledgement of your FOI request - FA 13/06/00327.

Kind regards,

Jessica Hallams

FOI Helpdesk
FOI & Privacy Policy
Department of Immigration and Citizenship
T: (02) 6198 7525
E: [DIAC request email]

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: FOI


Attachment s24AB notice.pdf
148K Download View as HTML


UNCLASSIFIED

Dear Mr Reid

Please see the attached notice.

Regards

Linda Rossiter
Director
FOI and Privacy Policy
Department of Immigration and Citizenship

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: David Reid

Delivered

Dear Ms Rossiter,

Thankyou for your email. I disagree with your assertion that my request can be linked to other requests in accordance with s 24(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth). I have made my request as an individual and I expect the request to be treated as an individual request under the FoI Act.

My request was very specific in asking for "Detail Incident Report 1-7AL08L". The number of documents involved in this request should be small and quite manageable. According to your reply it will take approximately three hours for DIAC to complete this request. I believe this is quite reasonable and is well within any limits set by the FoI Act.

I will not revise my request and expect DIAC to process it as it was originally submitted. This is a matter of public interest. I look forward to DIAC completing the request and releasing the relevant documents.

Yours sincerely,

David Reid

Link to this

From: FOI

UNCLASSIFIED

Dear Mr Reid

Thank you for your response. As stated in my notice of 24 June, section 24 the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act) does not require the requests to be made from the same applicant.

These are requests all from a single source, the department’s Compliance, Case Management, Detention and Settlement (CCMDS) portal, and all consist of incident reports and their attachments.

It therefore remains my view that the requests relate to subject matter that is substantially the same for each of the requests. The FOI Act does not require the subject matter to be identical, or for the documents in scope to be the same documents, rather the test employed is that the subject matter is substantially the same. Although the requests were for unique incidents the subject matter, namely ‘incidents in detention’, is substantially the same.

I note your comment that I have estimated that the time required to deal with your request would be three hours. My notice of 24 June advised that, based on the department’s previous experience, assessing incident detail reports and their attachments would take an average of three hours per report. I have not quantified the time required just for your request.

I note also your advice that you do not intend to vary or revise your request further. As stated in my notice of 24 June, I require agreement from each of the applicants in order to accept a position, including that of not wishing to revise the scope of the request. To simplify this process, you may wish to appoint (or nominate yourself as) a representative to take part in consultation with the department. I note that we require that each individual contact the department to nominate a representative rather than a representative appointing him/herself. A lack of response from any of the applicants by the required date will result in the request being deemed withdrawn under s.24AB(7) of the FOI Act.

If you are not happy with the department’s handling of the request you may make a complaint to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner. Details of how to do this are in the notice you received and are also available from www.oaic.gov.au.

Regards

Linda Rossiter
Director
FOI and Privacy Policy
Department of Immigration and Citizenship

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: FOI


Attachment Deemed withdrawn notice.pdf
64K Download View as HTML


UNCLASSIFIED

 

Dear Mr Reid

 

Please see the attached notice.

 

Regards

 

Linda Rossiter
Director

FOI and Privacy Policy   
Department of Immigration and Citizenship

 

UNCLASSIFIED

show quoted sections

Link to this

David Reid left an annotation ()

In the letter dated 9 July Ms Rossiter has written, "Please note I have not refused to give access to a document in accordance with your request. Your request is deemed to have been withdrawn by you."

I will still mark this application as refused on the Right to Know website. Although it has not been technically refused, access to the documents has been effectively blocked by the way DIAC has handled this request and other similar requests.

Link to this

From: David Reid

Delivered

Dear Department of Immigration and Citizenship,

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 Citizenship's handling of my FOI request 'FOI Request for Detail Incident Report 1-7AL08L'.

My request was based on information published at Detention Logs (http://detentionlogs.com.au). I made my request as an individual and expect it to be treated as such. I am not happy with the way my request has been grouped with other individuals and rejected on the basis that not all of these individuals have agreed on the same course of action regarding their requests.

I realise there are limits and costs associated with FoI requests so I only chose a single incident for my request. Also my request was very specific in identifying the documents so the amount of time involved in searching for it should not have placed a significant burden on DIAC.

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

Yours faithfully,

David Reid

Link to this

From: FOI

UNCLASSIFIED

Dear Mr Reid

As advised in my notice of 9 July 2013, this request is deemed to have been withdrawn. As this is not an access refusal decision, internal review is not available.

It remains open to you to make a new request under the Freedom of Information Act 1982.

If you are not happy with the department’s handling of the request you may make a complaint to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner. Details of how to do this are in the notice you received and are also available from www.oaic.gov.au.

Regards

Linda Rossiter
Director
FOI and Privacy Policy
Department of Immigration and Citizenship

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: David Reid

Delivered

Dear Ms Rossiter,

Thank you for your response. I will make a complaint to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner.

Yours sincerely,

David Reid

Link to this

David Reid left an annotation ()

I have filed a complaint with the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner via email.

I have submitted a new request to DIAC for the same information via Right to Know. https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/r...

Link to this

Red left an annotation ()

This is an interesting approach being taken by DIAC - grouping disparate requests from individuals into one request and then arguing 24AA. I'm not sure their approach is done in the spirit of the Act, but rather as a way to 'get rid' of FOI requests without actually refusing them.

Hypothetically,had DIAC then processed the request, I wonder how they intended to convey their decision to all parties - as there would only need to be one decision.

s24(2)states: (2) For the purposes of this section, the agency or Minister may treat 2 or more requests as a single request if the agency or Minister is satisfied that:

(a) the requests relate to the same document or documents; or

(b) the requests relate to documents, the subject matter of which is substantially the same.

How can DIAC argue that 85 requests relate to documents, the subject matter of which is substantially the same? I assume that the 85 requests are related to 85 different incidents?

Link to this

Things to do with this request

Anyone:
Department of Home Affairs only: