RESOLVE Case Reports for CP18/02632 & MR18/00607

Verity Pane made this Freedom of Information request to Office of the Australian Information Commissioner

Response to this request is long overdue. By law, under all circumstances, Office of the Australian Information Commissioner should have responded by now (details). You can complain by requesting an internal review.

From: Verity Pane

Delivered

Dear Office of the Australian Information Commissioner,

I seek copy of the RESOLVE Case Reports (under s 17 as they are generated by RESOLVE on request as I understand it) CP18/02632 & MR18/00607.

These RESOLVE Case Report possibly include my private email address, and therefore I would seek to have that redacted before release, but otherwise should just be a list of activities done to date by the OAIC in these matters

As these two computer generated documents should be no more than a page or two right now, the time required to produce this existing template report and review it should be well under the 5 hour free time threshold.

I think it is important the public understands the transparency and accountability the OAIC demonstrates in its processes, and it will also let me know what stage these activities are at so far.

Yours faithfully,

Verity Pane

Link to this

From: Amanda Nowland
Office of the Australian Information Commissioner


Attachment image001.jpg
2K Download

Attachment image002.png
0K Download

Attachment image003.png
0K Download

Attachment image004.png
0K Download

Attachment image005.png
0K Download


Our reference: FOIREQ18/00124

 

Dear Ms Pane

 

I refer to your application made under the Freedom of Information Act 1982
(Cth) (the FOI Act) received by the Office of the Australian Information
Commissioner (OAIC) on 12 September 2018.

 

Freedom of Information request - Scope of your request

In your FOI application you seek access to the RESOLVE Case Reports …
CP18/02632 & MR18/00607.

 

Timeframes for dealing with your FOI request

Section 15 of the FOI Act requires this office to process your request no
later than 30 days after the day we receive it. However, section 15(6) of
the FOI Act allows us a further 30 days in situations where we need to
consult with third parties about certain information, such as business
documents or documents affecting their personal privacy.

As we received your request on 12 September 2018, we must process your
request by 12 October 2018. However, if we are required to consult with
third parties, we must finalise your request by 12 November 2018. Of
course, we will endeavour to provide you with our decision as soon as
possible.

Disclosure Log

Documents released under the FOI Act may be published online on our
disclosure log, unless they contain personal or business information that
would be unreasonable to publish.

 

If you would like to discuss this matter please contact me on my contact
details set out below.

 

Regards

 

 

[1]O A I C logo   Amanda Nowland  |  Senior
Lawyer

Legal Services

Office of the Australian
Information Commissioner

GPO Box 5218 Sydney NSW 2001  |
 oaic.gov.au

+61 2 9284 9646  |  
[2][email address]
[6]Subscribe [7]Subscribe to
[3]Facebook | [4]LinkedIn | [5]Twitter |   icon OAICnet
newsletter

 

 

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
1. https://www.oaic.gov.au/
2. mailto:[email address]
3. http://www.facebook.com/OAICgov
4. https://www.linkedin.com/company/office-...
5. https://twitter.com/OAICgov
7. https://www.oaic.gov.au/media-and-speech...

Link to this

From: Verity Pane

Delivered

Attn Amanda Nowland,

Your s 15(5)(a) acknowledgement of 13 September 2018 stated that for this FOI ‘we must process your request by 12 October 2018’. No extension of time or stopping of the s 15(5)(b) clock occurred (no ss 26A, 27, 27A extensions, no practical refusal notice, no charges notice, no s 15AA or s 15AB extensions - nothing).

Is it any wonder the OAIC is absolutely ineffective (intentionally) at enforcing s 15(5)(b) adherence by other agencies, when the OAIC itself flouts the statutory requirements of the FOI Act.

Despite the OAIC recently celebrating Right to Know Day on 28 September this year, it is far to say the OAIC has done more to undermine FOI than to protect and promote it, over these last 5 years. Now it doesn’t even bother to give anything but lip service to the Act itself.

No wonder you have corrupt officers like Carl English making fraudulent s 15AB decisions and ultra vires conversions of Internal Reviews into closed IC ones - if you aren’t meeting even the basic FOI requirements like complying with s 15(5)(b).

DEEMED REFUSAL

An agency or minister must, as soon as practicable, and no later than 30 days after receiving a request, take all reasonable steps to enable the applicant to be notified of a decision on the request (s 15(5)(b)). Section 15(5)(b) provides that the 30-day processing period commences on the day after the day the agency or minister is taken to have received a request that meets the formal requirements of s s15(2), (2A).

In the absence of any valid notification of a statutory ground that extended that processing period, thr statutory date for decision therefore expired on Friday 12 October 2018, and the OAIC breached s 15(5)(b).

A ‘deemed refusal’ occurs if the time for making a decision on a request for access to a document has expired and an applicant has not been given a notice of decision. If this occurs, the principal officer of the agency or the minister is taken to have personally made a decision refusing to give access to the document on the last day of the ‘initial decision’ period (s 15AC). A notice of the deemed decision is taken to have been given on the last day of the decision period.

The consequence of a deemed refusal is that an applicant may apply for IC review (s 54L(2)(a)). An applicant or third party can also apply for IC review of a deemed affirmation of a decision on internal review (ss 54L(2)(b), 54M(2)(b)). In addition, once the time has expired and there is a deemed decision, the agency or minister cannot impose a charge for access.

Where an access refusal decision is deemed to have been made before a substantive decision is made, the agency or minister continues to have an obligation to provide a statement of reasons on the FOI request. This obligation to provide a statement of reasons on the FOI request continues until any IC review of the deemed decision is finalised. The competing view — that a decision maker is functus officio if a deemed decision arises — would have the consequence that an applicant’s right of access under the FOI Act would be impeded through delay on an agency’s part and could only be revived by an application for IC review. This result would be contrary to the objectives and requirements of the FOI Act.

Verity Pane

Link to this

From: Amanda Nowland
Office of the Australian Information Commissioner


Attachment image001.jpg
2K Download

Attachment image002.png
0K Download

Attachment image003.png
0K Download

Attachment image004.png
0K Download

Attachment image005.png
0K Download


Dear Ms Pane,

 

There was a decision made in this matter. It was sent to an alternative
email address on 26 September 2018.

 

You acknowledged the decision on 26 September 2018 and indicated that
there was no further work required on this request.

 

However, if you wish for me to send the decision to you again, via the
right to know website please let me know.

 

Regards,

Amanda

 

[1]O A I C logo   Amanda Nowland  |  Senior
Lawyer

Legal Services

Office of the Australian
Information Commissioner

GPO Box 5218 Sydney NSW 2001  |
 oaic.gov.au

+61 2 9284 9646  |  
[2][email address]
[6]Subscribe [7]Subscribe to
[3]Facebook | [4]LinkedIn | [5]Twitter |   icon OAICnet
newsletter

 

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
1. https://www.oaic.gov.au/
2. mailto:[email address]
3. http://www.facebook.com/OAICgov
4. https://www.linkedin.com/company/office-...
5. https://twitter.com/OAICgov
7. https://www.oaic.gov.au/media-and-speech...

Link to this

From: Verity Pane

Delivered

Dear Ms Amanda Nowland,

I am not aware I gave consent for a change of address for notices, and given Right to Know is where the request was made, the address for notices would be the Right to Know email address generated.

If you sent it elsewhere, other than the specified address for notices, I probably reasonably assumed it was about another FOI.

Yours sincerely,

Verity Pane

Link to this

Things to do with this request

Anyone:
Office of the Australian Information Commissioner only: