Dear Federal Court of Australia,

This is a request for documents.

You are welcome to provide access to the requested documents via an administrative release. Otherwise, this is a request for documents under the FOI Act.

According to an article in the Australian (Federal Court boss warned on job rule sidestep), appointments to the National Judicial Registrar positions (of which, according to the article, there were eight) in the Federal Court were proper because “the recruitment processes which resulted in the appointment of eight registrars because there had been ‘a role review process that had resulted in certain positions being found suitable for either a Legal 2 or (SES1) position, depending on the relative complexity and workload.’”

According to the Australian Public Service Classification Guide (page 30):

An agency with new or revised broadbanding proposals are (sic) required under the bargaining framework for APS enterprise agreements to consult with the Australian Public Service Commission (the Commission) to ensure that the proposals:

i) meet the APS Values and Employment Principles - relating to merit, community access to employment opportunities and leadership
ii) meet the APS legislative requirements - such as the Classification Rules
iii) are consistent with the bargaining framework for APS enterprise agreements. This includes that salary advancement for individuals within classifications and broadbands is subject to at least satisfactory performance.

I would like access to the following documents:

a) the consultations had between staff in the Federal Court and the APSC, in relation to new or revised broadbanding proposals for the National Judicial Registrar positions;
b) the APS role and classification evaluation records for the Legal 2 National Judicial Registrar positions;
c) the SES role and classification evaluation records for the SES Band 1 National Judicial Registrar positions;
d) the vacancy notifications for the National Judicial Registrar positions published in the Public Service Gazette which each of the following National Judicial Registrars (according to the website of the Federal Court) was engaged or promoted to fill - Phillip Allaway, Matthew Benter, Rupert Burns, Catherine Forbes, Claire Gitsham, Susan O'Connor and Katie Stride; and
e) any documents on how APS personnel files are to be maintained (presumably by human resources).

Documents may be provided in digital format by return email.

Yours faithfully,

L Marsten

External FOI, Federal Court of Australia

1 Attachment

OFFICIAL
Dear L Marsten

Please find attached correspondence from the Federal Court of Australia.

Kind regards

FOI Officer
Federal Court of Australia

show quoted sections

External FOI, Federal Court of Australia

1 Attachment

OFFICIAL
Dear L Marsten

Please find attached correspondence from the Federal Court of Australia.

Kind regards

FOI Officer
Federal Court of Australia

show quoted sections

External FOI, Federal Court of Australia

4 Attachments

OFFICIAL
Dear Sir/Madam

Please find attached correspondence from the Federal Court of Australia.

Kind regards

FOI Officer
Federal Court of Australia

show quoted sections

Dear Ms Hammerton Cole,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews. I am writing to request an internal review of Federal Court of Australia's handling of my FOI request 'Role and classification evaluations'.

Your decision is unsatisfactory.

I requested the following documents under the FOI Act:

a) The consultations had between staff in the APSC, in relation to new or revised broadbanding proposals for the National Judicial Registrar positions;
b) The APS role and classification evaluation records for the Legal 2 National Judicial Registrar positions;
c) The SES role and classification evaluation records for the SES Band 1 National Judicial Registrar positions;
d) The vacancy notifications for the National Judicial Registrar positions published in the Public Service Gazette which each of the following National Judicial Registrars … was engaged or promoted to fill – Phillip Allaway, Rupert Burns, Catherine Forbes, Claire Gitsham, Susan O’Connor and Katie Stride; and
e) Any documents on how APS personnel files are to be maintained (presumably by human resources).

Your reasons for decision do not adequately address the request made.

Part a

You claim there are no documents between staff in the APSC in relation to new or revised broadbanding proposals for the National Judicial Registrar positions. I am prepared to accept that such documents do not exist.

Part b

You claim that there are no APS role and classification evaluation records for the Legal 2 National Judicial Registrar positions. I am not prepared to accept this.

In an article published on 9 February 2022 in the Australian, Acting Assistant Commissioner Kate McMullan of the Australian Public Service Commission concluded, in respect of the National Judicial Registrar positions in the Federal Court, that “a role review process … had resulted in certain positions being found suitable for either a Legal 2 or (SES1) position, depending on the relative complexity and workload.” If a role review was conducted, there must be evidence of the role review, including records about the role and the complexity of the duties associated with the “Legal 2” role. How else could Ms McMullan have drawn such a conclusion?

Under the Archives Act 1983, a person must not engage in conduct that results in:

the destruction or other disposal of a Commonwealth record; or
the transfer of the custody or ownership of a Commonwealth record; or
damage to or alteration of a Commonwealth record.

Doing so is an offence (s 24(1A)), unless permitted by the Archives Act (s 24(2)).

The Administrative Functions Disposal Authority that you have provided makes it clear that “details of assigned duties” in relation to each employee must be “destroy[ed] 75 years after date of birth of employee or 7 years after last action, whichever is the later”. Are you suggesting that the records have been handled in a way that constitutes an offence? There must be some record of the roles of these “Legal 2” National Judicial Registrars. There must also be a record of the classification given to the “Legal 2” National Judicial Registrar role as Ms McMullan concluded that the National Judicial Registrar role was “suitable for either a Legal 2 or (SES1) position, depending on the relative complexity and workload.”

Part c

You claim that there are no APS role and classification evaluation records for the SES Band 1 National Judicial Registrar positions. I am not prepared to accept this.

In an article published on 9 February 2022 in the Australian, Acting Assistant Commissioner Kate McMullan of the Australian Public Service Commission concluded, in respect of the National Judicial Registrar positions in the Federal Court, that “a role review process … had resulted in certain positions being found suitable for either a Legal 2 or (SES1) position, depending on the relative complexity and workload.” If a role review was conducted, there must be evidence of the role review, including records about the role and the complexity of the duties associated with the “SES1” role. How else could Ms McMullan have drawn such a conclusion?

Under the Archives Act 1983, a person must not engage in conduct that results in:

the destruction or other disposal of a Commonwealth record; or
the transfer of the custody or ownership of a Commonwealth record; or
damage to or alteration of a Commonwealth record.

Doing so is an offence (s 24(1A)), unless permitted by the Archives Act (s 24(2)).

The Administrative Functions Disposal Authority that you have provided makes it clear that “details of assigned duties” in relation to each employee must be “destroy[ed] 75 years after date of birth of employee or 7 years after last action, whichever is the later”. Are you suggesting that the records have been handled in a way that constitutes an offence? There must be some record of the roles of these “SES1” National Judicial Registrars. There must also be a record of the classification given to the “SES1” National Judicial Registrar role as Ms McMullan concluded that the National Judicial Registrar role was “suitable for either a Legal 2 or (SES1) position, depending on the relative complexity and workload.”

You claim that a role record for the SES Band 1 National Judicial Registrar role could not be located. You claim that “extensive searches were undertaken by staff of the Court to identify any documents falling within the scope of [my] request.” You refused access to that document under s 24A of the FOI Act. Had the staff of the Court conducted “extensive searches”, they would have located the position description for the SES Band 1 National Judicial Registrar role on the Federal Court’s FOI disclosure log (see PA2925-06/8 at www.fedcourt.gov.au/disclosurelog). On pages 35-40 of the document associated with PA2925-06/8, there is a position description for the SES Band 1 National Judicial Registrar role. It differs substantially from the position description for the SES Band 1 National Judicial Registrar – Native Title role (see pages 23-28) and the SES Band 1 National Appeals Registrar role (see pages 17-22). The position description contains a record of the National Judicial Registrar role and can thus be reasonably described as a role record.

I do not have access to the records of the Federal Court and even I know that the SES Band 1 National Judicial Registrar role record exists. Plainly the document exists. Your refusal decision is unacceptable.

You also claimed that a role record for the “Legal 2” National Judicial Registrar role could not be located. You claimed that “extensive searches were undertaken by staff of the Court to identify any documents falling within the scope of [my] request.” You refused access to that document. Your assurances that “extensive searches” were conducted are greeted with skepticism because plainly those extensive searches were not, in fact, extensive. Please provide the role record (i.e. the document that contains a record of the role of a National Judicial Registrar) for the "Legal 2" National Judicial Registrars.

Part d

You have provided access to the vacancy notifications for the National Judicial Registrar – Native Title vacancy and the National Appeals Registrar vacancy, which you claim has since been designated National Judicial Registrar - Appeals.

Thank you for providing those vacancy notifications. Catriona Stride was promoted to fill the National Judicial Registrar – Native Title vacancy (see promotion notification NN 10740043 at pages 225 and 226 of Public Service Gazette No PS49 of 2018, which was published on 6 December 2018). It appears that Catherine Forbes was promoted to fill the National Appeals Registrar vacancy (see promotion notice NN10726743 at pages 207 and 208 of Public Service Gazette No PS 22 of 2018, which was published on 31 May 2018).

I requested access to the National Judicial Registrar positions published in the Public Service Gazette which each of the following National Judicial Registrars … was engaged or promoted to fill – Phillip Allaway, Rupert Burns, Catherine Forbes, Claire Gitsham, Susan O’Connor and Katie Stride.

Unless you are suggesting that Phillip Allaway, Rupert Burns, Claire Gitsham and Susan O’Connor applied for the National Judicial Registrar – Native Title vacancy and the National Appeals Registrar vacancy, then you have not addressed my request. I note that from:

1 July 2018 – 30 June 2019; and
1 July 2019 – 12 June 2020,

only Catriona Stride, Catherine Forbes and Susan O’Connor were SES Band 1 officials (see PA2925-06/9 at www.fedcourt.gov.au/disclosurelog). It would follow that Phillip Allaway, Rupert Burns, Claire Gitsham were not engaged or promoted into the SES Band 1 National Judicial Registrar role and, thus, are “Legal 2” National Judicial Registrars. As part of the internal review of this request, you are requested to provide what I asked for – namely the “Legal 2” National Judicial Registrar vacancy notifications that Phillip Allaway, Rupert Burns and Claire Gitsham responded to in order to fill the "Legal 2" National Judicial Registrar positions in the Federal Court. You are also requested to provide the SES Band 1 National Judicial Registrar vacancy notification for the position that Susan O’Connor was engaged to fill.

You have failed to properly respond to part d of my request. Please see to it that the person conducting the internal review responds to my request competently.

The fact that there was an investigation into the recruitment processes conducted by the management of the Federal Court under the Public Interest Disclosure Act, and the fact that the investigation is now under review by the Commonwealth Ombudsman (see Spotlight shines back on watchdog, an article published on page 3 of the Australian on 29 March 2022) is very concerning. The fact that Justice Greenwood criticised the former CEO and the current CEO of the Federal Court in a national newspaper (see Top judge warned of registrar overhaul, an article published on page 7 of the Australian on 10 February 2022) for, effectively, lying to him (he used the euphemism of “obfuscating”) lends support to the tentative conclusion that the Federal Court’s management is engaged in corrupt employment practices.

Finally, it seems to me that Ms Hammerton Cole has not made a genuine attempt to engage with the FOI request that I made. Aside from failing to provide documents that do, in fact, exist in the Federal Court’s records, Ms Hammerton Cole, cynically in my opinion, extended the time for consideration of my request by relying on s 27A of the FOI Act.

In her letter of decision, the registrar claims that the 2 vacancy notification that she provided access to had the name and contact number of a Federal Court official on them. She claimed that she was satisfied that “personal information” was included on the documents. She noted that “the documents containing that personal information were, at some stage, available from publicly accessible sources.” Nevertheless, Ms Hammerton Cole “considered it appropriate to undertake a consultation in accordance with subsection 27A(1) of the FOI Act on the basis that a person might reasonably wish to object to the release of their personal information.” Ms Hammerton Cole’s approach to the application of s 27A is cynical because the mere fact that a person’s name and telephone number appear on a document does not mean a person might reasonably wish to object to the release of the document that contains that personal information.

The documents that Ms Hammerton Cole provided access to were and are available for all members of the Australian community to access in the Public Service Gazette, which is online (see webarchive.nla.gov.au/tep/75984). The names and telephone numbers of public officials are published in those documents. Anybody can view those details. As Justice Jagot made clear in Dreyfus and Attorney-General (Commonwealth of Australia) (Freedom of information) [2015] AATA 995 [42]–[49], there must be some rational basis which the agency can discern, based on the face of the document or from anything else actually known to the decision-maker, indicating that disclosure of the document would, or could be expected to, unreasonably affect the person adversely in relation to his or her personal information. The mere appearance of a person’s name in the document, in the absence of anything more, may not be sufficient for it to be apparent that a person might reasonably wish to make an exemption contention (see paragraph 3.77 of the FOI Guidelines). My view is that Ms Hammerton Cole’s reliance on s 27A was, in the light of the law and the facts, unwarranted and was just a cynical time grab. Her credibility as a dispassionate and objective decision maker has been diminished in my opinion.

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,

L Marsten

External FOI, Federal Court of Australia

1 Attachment

OFFICIAL
Dear L Martsen

Please find attached correspondence from the Federal Court of Australia.

Kind regards

FOI Officer
Federal Court of Australia

show quoted sections

External FOI, Federal Court of Australia

2 Attachments

OFFICIAL
Dear L Marsten

Please find attached correspondence from the Federal Court of Australia.

Kind regards

FOI Officer
Federal Court of Australia

-----Original Message-----From: L Marsten <[FOI #8413 email]>
Sent: Wednesday, 20 April 2022 12:23 AM
To: External FOI <[email address]>
Subject: Internal review of Freedom of Information request - Role and classification evaluations

Caution: This is an external email. DO NOT click links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Ms Hammerton Cole,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews. I am writing to request an internal review of Federal Court of Australia's handling of my FOI request 'Role and classification evaluations'.

Your decision is unsatisfactory.

I requested the following documents under the FOI Act:

a) The consultations had between staff in the APSC, in relation to new or revised broadbanding proposals for the National Judicial Registrar positions;

b) The APS role and classification evaluation records for the Legal 2 National Judicial Registrar positions;

c) The SES role and classification evaluation records for the SES Band 1 National Judicial Registrar positions;

d) The vacancy notifications for the National Judicial Registrar positions published in the Public Service Gazette which each of the following National Judicial Registrars … was engaged or promoted to fill – Phillip Allaway, Rupert Burns, Catherine Forbes, Claire Gitsham, Susan O’Connor and Katie Stride; and

e) Any documents on how APS personnel files are to be maintained (presumably by human resources).

Your reasons for decision do not adequately address the request made.

Part a

You claim there are no documents between staff in the APSC in relation to new or revised broadbanding proposals for the National Judicial Registrar positions. I am prepared to accept that such documents do not exist.

Part b

You claim that there are no APS role and classification evaluation records for the Legal 2 National Judicial Registrar positions. I am not prepared to accept this.

In an article published on 9 February 2022 in the Australian, Acting Assistant Commissioner Kate McMullan of the Australian Public Service Commission concluded, in respect of the National Judicial Registrar positions in the Federal Court, that “a role review process … had resulted in certain positions being found suitable for either a Legal 2 or (SES1) position, depending on the relative complexity and workload.” If a role review was conducted, there must be evidence of the role review, including records about the role and the complexity of the duties associated with the “Legal 2” role. How else could Ms McMullan have drawn such a conclusion?

Under the Archives Act 1983, a person must not engage in conduct that results in:

the destruction or other disposal of a Commonwealth record; or

the transfer of the custody or ownership of a Commonwealth record; or

damage to or alteration of a Commonwealth record.

Doing so is an offence (s 24(1A)), unless permitted by the Archives Act (s 24(2)).

The Administrative Functions Disposal Authority that you have provided makes it clear that “details of assigned duties” in relation to each employee must be “destroy[ed] 75 years after date of birth of employee or 7 years after last action, whichever is the later”. Are you suggesting that the records have been handled in a way that constitutes an offence? There must be some record of the roles of these “Legal 2” National Judicial Registrars. There must also be a record of the classification given to the “Legal 2” National Judicial Registrar role as Ms McMullan concluded that the National Judicial Registrar role was “suitable for either a Legal 2 or (SES1) position, depending on the relative complexity and workload.”

Part c

You claim that there are no APS role and classification evaluation records for the SES Band 1 National Judicial Registrar positions. I am not prepared to accept this.

In an article published on 9 February 2022 in the Australian, Acting Assistant Commissioner Kate McMullan of the Australian Public Service Commission concluded, in respect of the National Judicial Registrar positions in the Federal Court, that “a role review process … had resulted in certain positions being found suitable for either a Legal 2 or (SES1) position, depending on the relative complexity and workload.” If a role review was conducted, there must be evidence of the role review, including records about the role and the complexity of the duties associated with the “SES1” role. How else could Ms McMullan have drawn such a conclusion?

Under the Archives Act 1983, a person must not engage in conduct that results in:

the destruction or other disposal of a Commonwealth record; or

the transfer of the custody or ownership of a Commonwealth record; or

damage to or alteration of a Commonwealth record.

Doing so is an offence (s 24(1A)), unless permitted by the Archives Act (s 24(2)).

The Administrative Functions Disposal Authority that you have provided makes it clear that “details of assigned duties” in relation to each employee must be “destroy[ed] 75 years after date of birth of employee or 7 years after last action, whichever is the later”. Are you suggesting that the records have been handled in a way that constitutes an offence? There must be some record of the roles of these “SES1” National Judicial Registrars. There must also be a record of the classification given to the “SES1” National Judicial Registrar role as Ms McMullan concluded that the National Judicial Registrar role was “suitable for either a Legal 2 or (SES1) position, depending on the relative complexity and workload.”

You claim that a role record for the SES Band 1 National Judicial Registrar role could not be located. You claim that “extensive searches were undertaken by staff of the Court to identify any documents falling within the scope of [my] request.” You refused access to that document under s 24A of the FOI Act. Had the staff of the Court conducted “extensive searches”, they would have located the position description for the SES Band 1 National Judicial Registrar role on the Federal Court’s FOI disclosure log (see PA2925-06/8 at www.fedcourt.gov.au/disclosurelog). On pages 35-40 of the document associated with PA2925-06/8, there is a position description for the SES Band 1 National Judicial Registrar role. It differs substantially from the position description for the SES Band 1 National Judicial Registrar – Native Title role (see pages 23-28) and the SES Band 1 National Appeals Registrar role (see pages 17-22). The position description contains a record of the National Judicial Registrar role and can thus be reasonably described as a role record.

I do not have access to the records of the Federal Court and even I know that the SES Band 1 National Judicial Registrar role record exists. Plainly the document exists. Your refusal decision is unacceptable.

You also claimed that a role record for the “Legal 2” National Judicial Registrar role could not be located. You claimed that “extensive searches were undertaken by staff of the Court to identify any documents falling within the scope of [my] request.” You refused access to that document. Your assurances that “extensive searches” were conducted are greeted with skepticism because plainly those extensive searches were not, in fact, extensive. Please provide the role record (i.e. the document that contains a record of the role of a National Judicial Registrar) for the "Legal 2" National Judicial Registrars.

Part d

You have provided access to the vacancy notifications for the National Judicial Registrar – Native Title vacancy and the National Appeals Registrar vacancy, which you claim has since been designated National Judicial Registrar - Appeals.

Thank you for providing those vacancy notifications. Catriona Stride was promoted to fill the National Judicial Registrar – Native Title vacancy (see promotion notification NN 10740043 at pages 225 and 226 of Public Service Gazette No PS49 of 2018, which was published on 6 December 2018). It appears that Catherine Forbes was promoted to fill the National Appeals Registrar vacancy (see promotion notice NN10726743 at pages 207 and 208 of Public Service Gazette No PS 22 of 2018, which was published on 31 May 2018).

I requested access to the National Judicial Registrar positions published in the Public Service Gazette which each of the following National Judicial Registrars … was engaged or promoted to fill – Phillip Allaway, Rupert Burns, Catherine Forbes, Claire Gitsham, Susan O’Connor and Katie Stride.

Unless you are suggesting that Phillip Allaway, Rupert Burns, Claire Gitsham and Susan O’Connor applied for the National Judicial Registrar – Native Title vacancy and the National Appeals Registrar vacancy, then you have not addressed my request. I note that from:

1 July 2018 – 30 June 2019; and

1 July 2019 – 12 June 2020,

only Catriona Stride, Catherine Forbes and Susan O’Connor were SES Band 1 officials (see PA2925-06/9 at www.fedcourt.gov.au/disclosurelog). It would follow that Phillip Allaway, Rupert Burns, Claire Gitsham were not engaged or promoted into the SES Band 1 National Judicial Registrar role and, thus, are “Legal 2” National Judicial Registrars. As part of the internal review of this request, you are requested to provide what I asked for – namely the “Legal 2” National Judicial Registrar vacancy notifications that Phillip Allaway, Rupert Burns and Claire Gitsham responded to in order to fill the "Legal 2" National Judicial Registrar positions in the Federal Court. You are also requested to provide the SES Band 1 National Judicial Registrar vacancy notification for the position that Susan O’Connor was engaged to fill.

You have failed to properly respond to part d of my request. Please see to it that the person conducting the internal review responds to my request competently.

The fact that there was an investigation into the recruitment processes conducted by the management of the Federal Court under the Public Interest Disclosure Act, and the fact that the investigation is now under review by the Commonwealth Ombudsman (see Spotlight shines back on watchdog, an article published on page 3 of the Australian on 29 March 2022) is very concerning. The fact that Justice Greenwood criticised the former CEO and the current CEO of the Federal Court in a national newspaper (see Top judge warned of registrar overhaul, an article published on page 7 of the Australian on 10 February 2022) for, effectively, lying to him (he used the euphemism of “obfuscating”) lends support to the tentative conclusion that the Federal Court’s management is engaged in corrupt employment practices.

Finally, it seems to me that Ms Hammerton Cole has not made a genuine attempt to engage with the FOI request that I made. Aside from failing to provide documents that do, in fact, exist in the Federal Court’s records, Ms Hammerton Cole, cynically in my opinion, extended the time for consideration of my request by relying on s 27A of the FOI Act.

In her letter of decision, the registrar claims that the 2 vacancy notification that she provided access to had the name and contact number of a Federal Court official on them. She claimed that she was satisfied that “personal information” was included on the documents. She noted that “the documents containing that personal information were, at some stage, available from publicly accessible sources.” Nevertheless, Ms Hammerton Cole “considered it appropriate to undertake a consultation in accordance with subsection 27A(1) of the FOI Act on the basis that a person might reasonably wish to object to the release of their personal information.” Ms Hammerton Cole’s approach to the application of s 27A is cynical because the mere fact that a person’s name and telephone number appear on a document does not mean a person might reasonably wish to object to the release of the document that contains that personal information.

The documents that Ms Hammerton Cole provided access to were and are available for all members of the Australian community to access in the Public Service Gazette, which is online (see webarchive.nla.gov.au/tep/75984). The names and telephone numbers of public officials are published in those documents. Anybody can view those details. As Justice Jagot made clear in Dreyfus and Attorney-General (Commonwealth of Australia) (Freedom of information) [2015] AATA 995 [42]–[49], there must be some rational basis which the agency can discern, based on the face of the document or from anything else actually known to the decision-maker, indicating that disclosure of the document would, or could be expected to, unreasonably affect the person adversely in relation to his or her personal information. The mere appearance of a person’s name in the document, in the absence of anything more, may not be sufficient for it to be apparent that a person might reasonably wish to make an exemption contention (see paragraph 3.77 of the FOI Guidelines). My view is that Ms Hammerton Cole’s reliance on s 27A was, in the light of the law and the facts, unwarranted and was just a cynical time grab. Her credibility as a dispassionate and objective decision maker has been diminished in my opinion.

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,

L Marsten

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Please use this email address for all replies to this request:

[FOI #8413 email]

This request has been made by an individual using Right to Know. This message and any reply that you make will be published on the internet. More information on how Right to Know works can be found at:

https://www.righttoknow.org.au/help/offi...

Please note that in some cases publication of requests and responses will be delayed.

If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Federal Court of Australia

 
 
  [1]Office of the Australian Information Reference Code:  
Commissioner ICR_10-48845733-2575
 

 
You submitted a form called: FOI Review_
 
Your form reference code is: ICR_10-48845733-2575

To check the progress of your submission and/or confirm it has been
received you should contact the agency that provides the form. These
details are displayed below.
 
 
Office of the Australian Information Commissioner
[2]http://www.oaic.gov.au | [3]1300 363 992 | [4][email address]
GPO Box 5218, Sydney NSW 2001
 
 
Note: Please do not reply to this auto-generated email.
 

References

Visible links
2. http://www.oaic.gov.au/
3. file:///tmp/tel:1300 363 992
4. mailto:[email address]

Federal Court of Australia

 
 
  [1]Office of the Australian Information Reference Code:  
Commissioner ICR_10-48845733-2575
 

 
You submitted a form called: FOI Review_
 
Your form reference code is: ICR_10-48845733-2575

To check the progress of your submission and/or confirm it has been
received you should contact the agency that provides the form. These
details are displayed below.
 
 
Office of the Australian Information Commissioner
[2]http://www.oaic.gov.au | [3]1300 363 992 | [4][email address]
GPO Box 5218, Sydney NSW 2001
 
 
Note: Please do not reply to this auto-generated email.
 

References

Visible links
2. http://www.oaic.gov.au/
3. file:///tmp/tel:1300 363 992
4. mailto:[email address]

Federal Court of Australia

1 Attachment

Our reference: MR22/00821

 

By email: [FOI #8413 email]

Receipt of your IC review application  

Thank you for your application for Information Commissioner Review (IC
review).

The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) is
considering your application.

If you wish to advise the OAIC of any changes to your circumstances,
including your contact details or if your FOI request has been resolved,
please write to [email address] and quote MR22/00821.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Freedom of Information Regulatory Group

Office of the Australian Information Commissioner

 

 

 

Notice:

The information contained in this email message and any attached files may
be confidential information, and may also be the subject of legal
professional privilege. If you are not the intended recipient any use,
disclosure or copying of this email is unauthorised. If you received this
email in error, please notify the sender by contacting the department's
switchboard on 1300 488 064 during business hours (8:30am - 5pm Canberra
time) and delete all copies of this transmission together with any
attachments.