Dear Commonwealth Ombudsman,

On 20 March 2022 I made a request to the APSC for selection documents relating to the selection of the National Judicial Registrar & District Registrar - QLD and National Judicial Registrar & District Registrar - WA of the Federal Court (see vacancy NN 10725159 in on pages 34-36 in Public Service Gazette No PS19 published on 10 May 2018). The request can be seen here: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s....

On 25 March 2022 Ms Giorgina Strangio, the Assistant Commissioner for Integrity, Performance and Employment Policy in the Australian Public Service Commission, made an access decision and provided me with redacted copies of the selection reports: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s....

On 27 March 2022 I requested an internal review of Ms Strangio's decision on the ground that the redactions were too extensive: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s...

On 4 April 2022 Mr Patrick Hetherington, the First Assistant Commissioner in the Australian Public Service Commission, provided a decision pursuant to my internal review request. Mr Hetherington made a fresh decision and removed some of the redactions that Ms Strangio had made to the selection reports: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s...

On 5 April 2022 I made a request to the APSC for selection documents relating to the selection of the NCF Registrar (NN 10690165 in Public Service Gazette No PS38 of 2016, published on 21 September 2016). The request can be seen here: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s.... The document is a similar document to the selection reports released to me by Ms Strangio and Mr Hetherington on 25 March 2022 and 4 April 2022

Ms Giorgina Strangio refused access to the document. One of her reasons for refusing to grant access was that the selection report for vacancy NN 10690165 was provided to the APSC in the course of a PID investigation (much like the selection reports for the National Judicial Registrar & District Registrar - QLD and National Judicial Registrar & District Registrar - WA vacancies). According to an article published in the Australian on 29 March 2022, that PID investigation is subject to an investigation under the Ombudsman Act (a Category 4 investigation). In a mealy mouthed way, Ms Strangio claims that granting access to the selection report for vacancy NN 10690165 would undermine the secrecy provision (s 65) of the PID Act.

Section 65 of the PID Act provides:

(1) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person has information (protected information) that the person obtained:
(i) in the course of conducting a disclosure investigation; or
(ii) in connection with the performance of a function, or the exercise of a power, by the person under this Act; and
(b) the person:
(i) discloses the information to another person; or
(ii) uses the information.

Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years or 120 penalty units, or both.

If Ms Strangio genuinely believes that disclosing information to people that is contained in documents that were obtained in the course of a disclosure investigation is a contravention of s 65 of the PID Act, and if she is correct, then, in providing the selection reports for the National Judicial Registrar & District Registrar - QLD and National Judicial Registrar & District Registrar - WA vacancies that Murray Belcher and Russell Trott were "promoted" to would constitute a contravention of section 65. A person who contravenes s 65 commits an indictable offence, which is punishable by imprisonment for 2 years or 120 penalty units, or both. Accordingly, Ms Stragio, the Assistant Commissioner for Integrity, Performance and Employment Policy in the Australian Public Service Commission, and Mr Hetherington, the First Assistant Commissioner in the Australian Public Service Commission, would have committed offences.

Under the FOI Act, but for access to the Agency Guide to the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 (version 2), I request access to any and all documents held by the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman that set out:

a) how investigations of suspected offences (generally) are to be investigated internally (that is, in the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman);
b) how investigations of contraventions of s 65 of the PID Act are to be investigated internally (that is, in the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman);
c) how referrals to investigative bodies other than the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman are to be made if a person is suspected of contravening s 65 of the PID Act; and
d) anything about the referral of suspected offences under s 65 of the PID Act are to made from an investigative body to a prosecutorial body.

Yours faithfully,

Marcus

Dear Commonwealth Ombudsman,

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

I request an internal review of your decision in respect of item 1 - Commonwealth Ombudsman's PID Standard Operating Procedure.

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

Yours faithfully,

Marcus

Dear Ms Dellit,

Thank you for your letter.

For your information I have applied for IC review of your decision.

Yours faithfully,

Marcus