MOU for the transfer of C-130 Hercules aircraft to Indonesia.

Asher Hirsch made this Freedom of Information request to Department of Defence

The request was refused by Department of Defence.

From: Asher Hirsch

Delivered

Dear Department of Defence,

Under Freedom of Information I request the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for the transfer of four Australian Defence Force C-130 Hercules aircraft to Indonesia signed in July 2012.

Yours faithfully,

Asher Hirsch

Link to this

From: FOI
Department of Defence

UNCLASSIFIED

Good morning Mr Hirsch,

Thank you for your FOI inquiry, it has been forwarded for consideration.

Kind regards,
Jo

____________________________
Freedom of Information
Governance & Reform Division
 
Telephone:  (02) 6266 2200
[email address]  

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: Peterson, John MR
Department of Defence


Attachment Preliminary Assessment of Charges.pdf
127K Download View as HTML


UNCLASSIFIED

Dear Mr Hirsch,

 

Please refer to the attached document in relation to your Freedom of
Information request – FOI 434/17/18

 

Regards

 

 John Peterson

FOI Case Officer

Enterprise Reform Branch

Governance and Reform Division

CP1-6-009

Tel:  (02) 6266 3778

 

 

IMPORTANT: This email remains the property of the Department of Defence
and is subject to the jurisdiction of section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914.
If you have received this email in error, you are requested to contact the
sender and delete the email.

Link to this

From: Asher Hirsch

Delivered

Dear Mr Peterson,

Thank you for your email.

Under s 29(5) I request an exemption for these charges, for the following reasons:

- The payments would cause me financial hardship. I am currently a full-time PhD Candidate at Monash University. This document forms part of my PhD research, however, I have no research funding or any other funding to cover the cost of this request.

- I believe the release of this document is in the public interest. The Australian community rightly expects that Australia's gifting of military equipment to other countries is publicly available. This MOU has been previously promoted by the Department of Defence in a press release (https://web.archive.org/web/201211080903..., indicating its broad public interest. It has also been reported widely in the national media. Further, the documents have been subject to debate and public discussion, and the release of this MOU would better inform the public as to why or how the decision was made, including highlighting any problems or flaws that occurred in the decision-making process. As mentioned, this document will form part of my PhD research which will be published in a publicly available book.

I look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely,

Asher Hirsch

Link to this

From: Peterson, John MR
Department of Defence

UNCLASSIFIED

Dear Mr Hirsch,

Thank you for your email in which you appealed your liability to pay charges for the processing of your request.

Please note that under the FOI Act, the Department has 30-days to consider your appeal. As such, we have until 31 May 2018 to provide you with the appeal decision.

Regards
 
 John Peterson
FOI Case Officer
Enterprise Reform Branch
Governance and Reform Division
CP1-6-009
Tel:  (02) 6266 3778
 

show quoted sections

Link to this

Verity Pane left an annotation ()

Hi Adam, an estimated charge of $90 is generally considered by the Information Commissioner in the range of charges where the costs of calculation and processing the charge exceeds the actual charge, in which case the Commissioner is of the view that the charge should not have been applied.

A charge should be accurate, should fairly reflect the work involved in providing access to documents on request and must not be used to unnecessarily delay access or discourage an applicant from exercising the right of access conferred by the FOI Act. Defence, in particular, is an agency well known for using charges estimates to harass applicants with.

One option available to you, to avoid delay, is pay the $20 deposit, but make an IC review application to the OAIC (the fact you pay the deposit does not prevent you seeking review of the charge), and that has the benefit of:
* preventing Defence using it as an excuse to stop the clock on the statutory processing time;
* deferring final payment
* if successful having the Commissioner waive the charges and forcing Defence to reimburse you your deposit.

Based on your circumstances you are highly likely to be successful.

Justin Warren and Department of Human Services (No 2) (Freedom of information) [2018] AICmr 17 (1 February 2018) http://classic.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/si...

Link to this

From: Peterson, John MR
Department of Defence


Attachment Review of charges decision.pdf
120K Download View as HTML

Attachment FOI Rights of Review.pdf
244K Download View as HTML


 

 

Dear Mr Hirsch,

 

The attached documents are provided in response to your Freedom of
Information request submitted to Defence.

 

Regards

 

 John Peterson

FOI Case Officer

Enterprise Reform Branch

Governance and Reform Division

CP1-6-009

Tel:  (02) 6266 3778

 

 

Link to this

Verity Pane left an annotation ()

With the charges being reduced to $60 and therefore even further below the threshold the Information Commissioner has generally regarded as not sufficient to justify the costs of collecting charges, it again may be more expedient to:
1) Pay the $20 deposit while still making Defence aware you do not believe the charges should have been levied
2) Make an IC review application to the OAIC on the basis that the charges should not have been applied in the first place, as the costs of collection exceed the charge itself, and is contrary to the aims and objectives of the Act

Means parting with $20 for a while, but the effort is worth it for reducing such improper charging practices in the future, especially since the Information Commissioner has ruled previously on this matter and continual disregard will possibly lead to a rebuke.

Link to this

Asher Hirsch left an annotation ()

Thanks Verity Pane. I'm going to go ahead and pay the deposit. I appreciate your advice (on this and other FOIs).

Link to this

From: Matthews, Venessa MS
Department of Defence


Attachment 180613 Deposit invoice 1800733534 HIRSCH FOI 434 17 18.pdf
39K Download View as HTML


UNCLASSIFIED

Good afternoon,

 

Our office received your agreement to pay the FOI processing charges on 5
June 2018. Accordingly, Mrs Melissa Davidson, AD, FOI has decided to
impose the charges.

 

Please find attached your invoice for the Deposit for Charges
of $20.00 for FOI Request No. 434/17/18.  Please pay utilising any of the
means listed at the bottom of the invoice. 

 

Once you have made the payment can you please send a copy of the receipt
to [1][email address

 

Kind regards,

 

Venessa Matthews

FOI Operations

Information Management Access

Governance and Reform Division

 

Department of Defence | CP1-6-001|

PO Box 7910 | CANBERRA BC ACT 2610
Ph:  02 6266 2200

email: [2][email address]

 

 

 

 

 

 

IMPORTANT: This email remains the property of the Department of Defence
and is subject to the jurisdiction of section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914.
If you have received this email in error, you are requested to contact the
sender and delete the email.

References

Visible links
1. blocked::blocked::mailto:[email address] blocked::mailto:[email address] mailto:[email address] blocked::blocked::mailto:[email address] blocked::mailto:[email address]
file:///tmp/blocked::mailto:[email address]
2. mailto:[email address]
file:///tmp/blocked::mailto:[email address]

Link to this

From: Peterson, John MR
Department of Defence

Dear Mr Hirsch,

1.               I refer to your email, dated 27 April 2018, in which you
requested access, under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act), to:

“Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for the transfer of four Australian
Defence Force C-130 Hercules aircraft to Indonesia signed in July 2012.”

FOI charges

2.               We received your payment of the required deposit against
the estimated FOI processing charges on 7 July 2018.   Accordingly, Mr Cos
Cameron, Assistant Director FOI, has decided to impose the charges. 

Statutory deadline

3.               The thirty-day statutory period for processing your
request commenced on 27 April 2018,  but was suspended when we dispatched
our preliminary assessment of charges letter to you on 1 May 2018.  The
thirty-day statutory period for processing recommenced when we received
the above mentioned payment.  Therefore, the thirty-day statutory deadline
will expire on 2 August 2018.

4.               Your request has been referred to the appropriate
departmental area for consideration.  I will inform you of the outcome of
your request, as soon as I am in a position to do so.

5.               Should you have any questions relating to your request,
please do not hesitate to contact our office via telephone on (02) 6266
2200 or via email to [1][email address].

 

Kind regards

 

 

 John Peterson

FOI Case Officer

Enterprise Reform Branch

Governance and Reform Division

CP1-6-009

Tel:  (02) 6266 3778

 

 

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]

Link to this

From: Peterson, John MR
Department of Defence

Good afternoon Mr Hirsch,

 

I refer to your email, dated 27 April 2018, in which you requested access,
under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act), to:

“Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for the transfer of four Australian
Defence Force C-130 Hercules aircraft to Indonesia signed in July 2012.”

 

In our email dated 10 July 2018, you were advised that the statutory
deadline for a response to this request was 2 August 2018.

Your request was forwarded to Strategic Policy & Intelligence -
International Policy, for consideration. The Accredited Decision Maker,
Miss Rachel Warner has advised that your request covers a document which
contains information belonging to foreign governments.

Miss Warner has determined that there is requirement to consult the third
parties under subsection 15(7) of the FOI Act, before making a decision on
the release of the document. 

Subsection 15(8) of the FOI Act provides for an extension of 30 days to
the statutory time limit for processing requests.  Therefore, the deadline
for providing you with the decision on your request is now 1 September
2018.

I would be grateful if you could confirm, by 16 July 2018,  if the FOI
Directorate could disclose your identity as the applicant to the third
parties for the purpose of consultation.

Should you have any questions relating to your request, please do not
hesitate to contact our office via telephone on (02) 6266 2200 or via
email to [1][email address].

 

Regards

 

 John Peterson

FOI Case Officer

Enterprise Reform Branch

Governance and Reform Division

CP1-6-009

Tel:  (02) 6266 3778

 

 

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]

Link to this

From: Asher Hirsch

Delivered

Dear Peterson, John MR,

Thank you for your email. I do not give permission for the Department to disclose my name to any third parties at this stage.

Yours sincerely,

Asher Hirsch

Link to this

Stephanie Johnson left an annotation ()

Asher,

Interesting position to take about your name not being disclosed where you have elected to make this FOI request on a public website that is available for everyone to view.

Good luck.

Steph

Link to this

Verity Pane left an annotation ()

Dear Mr Hirsch,

I am sorry RtK account Stephanie Johnson left a sarcastic comment about your personal decision, which is quite valid, not to give consent for your name to be used in third party consultations about your FOI.

RtK policy for annotations are that they are for helping FOI requesters with their request, such as suggesting where sources of information might be, or what else might be relevant to be included in scope, or advice on how to overcome roadblocks. They are not intended for the providing of personal criticism of requesters or for unhelpful commentary.

While Ms Johnson is correct that RtK is a fine public website, to help improve accessibility to, and transparency of, FOI decisions, the idea that the disclosure of your name here (which, for any of us know, may be a pseudonym anyway) negates the consent required to be sought by the Department is just a bit silly. While RtK enjoys good community support, it is simply not read by everyone on the planet.

In fact, it is more likely than not that the third party is not aware of your request here on RtK, and certainly not your name - agencies send letters, not web links to RtK, when seeking third party consultation (and often the third party doesn’t even respond, let alone read the letter).

But regardless, it is your choice and no-one else’s if you wish for the Department to provide your name to third parties consulted (whether or not they could find out that information themselves).

Again, I apologise for that person’s commentary which was inconsistent with the RtK moderation policy on annotations, which is that Annotations on Right To Know 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, none of which that commentary fell into.

I reassure you the vast majority of helpers here in RtK are here to assist others in constructive ways.

Kind Regards

Verity

Link to this

From: FOI
Department of Defence


Attachment FOI Rights of Review.pdf
244K Download View as HTML

Attachment Defence FOI 434 17 18 Statement of Reasons Signed.pdf
1.6M Download View as HTML


UNCLASSIFIED

Good afternoon Mr Hirsch,

 

Please find attached the Statement of Reasons and documents approved for
release, relating to FOI 434/17/18. 

In correspondence dated 11 July 2018, you were informed that the statutory
deadline for you to receive a response to your request was 1 September
2018, which was a Sunday. In accordance with the FOI Guidelines issued by
the Australian Information Commissioner, if the last day for notifying a
decision falls on a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday, the timeframe
will expire on the first day following which is none of those days.  As
such, the due date for you to receive a response expires today, 3
September 2018.

Rights of Review

Under the provisions of section 54 of the FOI Act, you are entitled to
request a review of this decision. Your review rights are attached.

Thank you,

 

Freedom of Information

Governance and Reform Division

Department of Defence

E-mail:   [1][email address]

[2]http://www.defence.gov.au/FOI/privacy.asp

 

 

IMPORTANT: This email remains the property of the Department of Defence
and is subject to the jurisdiction of section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914.
If you have received this email in error, you are requested to contact the
sender and delete the email.

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. http://www.defence.gov.au/FOI/privacy.asp
file:///tmp/blocked::http:/www.defence.gov.au/FOI/privacy.asp

Link to this

Things to do with this request

Anyone:
Department of Defence only: