Dear Federal Court of Australia,

In an article in the Australian titled “Untried lawyers score key positions”, which was published on 8 February 2022, the journalists noted that acting Assistant Commissioner McMullan of the Australian Public Service Commission found that the recruitment process that led to the court promoting the woman had breached the Public Service Act. The journalists suggest that a female was promoted to the position of a registrar of the Federal Court contrary to the requirements of the Public Service Act, despite the fact that every other candidate was admitted as a practitioner of a Supreme Court of a State or Territory.

I want to know two things:

a) the name of the person, or the names of the people, responsible for promoting a candidate into an important role, and the reasons for doing so; and
b) whether any action was taken to hold to account those responsible for promoting the female registrar.

In respect of a), under the FOI Act I request the following documents:

i. the selection report/s of the person/s responsible for selecting the female candidate to fill the national registrar position;
ii. the Public Service Gazette vacancy notification for the national registrar position that the female candidate was promoted to;
iii. file notes (including correspondence) pertaining to the selection process;
iv. all classification assessment documents for the national registrar role.

In relation to the selection report/s, you are welcome to redact the names of candidates, including the “successful” candidate from the report. I have no desire to know who these people are. You are requested not to redact the name/s of the person/s responsible for the selection process, the signature/s applied to any selection reports by the responsible person/s, any date information on the selection report/s or any reasons in support of why the female candidate was successful in securing the role and why the other candidates were not successful. There is a public interest in accessing the requested documents because of the seriousness of the allegations set out in the article in the Australian.

In respect of b), under the FOI Act I request the following documents:

i. any and all documents, such as code of conduct investigation reports, which set out what action was taken to hold to account those responsible for promoting the female candidate to national registrar;
ii. any and all documentary correspondence sent or received by Ms Sia Lagos following the outcome of the investigation by the acting assistant commissioner McMullan that relates to the issue of holding the person/s responsible for promoting the female national registrar to account.

In relation to such things as code of conduct investigations, you are requested not to redact the allegations of wrongdoing / grounds of contravention. You are also requested not to redact the name/s of the person/s investigated. Again, there is a public interest in accessing the requested documents because of the seriousness of the allegations set out in the article in the Australian.

Yours faithfully,

Ashok

External FOI, Federal Court of Australia

1 Attachment

OFFICIAL
Dear Ashok

Please find attached correspondence from the Federal Court of Australia.

Kind regards
FOI Officer

show quoted sections

External FOI, Federal Court of Australia

1 Attachment

OFFICIAL
Dear Ashok

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

3 Attachments

OFFICIAL
Dear Ashok

Please find attached correspondence from the Federal Court of Australia.

Kind regards

FOI Officer
Federal Court of Australia

show quoted sections

Dear B Henderson

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 'Untried lawyers score key positions'.

Paragraph (a)(i)

I do not accept your reasons for decision in relation to paragraph (a)(i).

In relation to your ss 47E(c) and 47E(d) conditional exemption claims, I adopt the legal analysis that terens provided to the OAIC - see https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/i...

Those exemptions do not extend to documents that disclose unlawful conduct. Those exemptions do not extend to documents that were brought into existence for unlawful ends. It is plainly the case that the selection report contains a record of unlawful conduct because it involves information relating to the selection of an unmeritorious candidate for a position in the Federal Court.

Deliberations entered into to secure unlawful ends are not covered by s 47C for the fundamental reason that terens identified - Parliament assumes legality. Deliberations that were entered into to provide an unmeritorious candidate with a position when every other candidate did have the requisite skills and qualifications for the position (see the article in the Australian titled "Untried lawyers score key positions", which was published on 8 February 2022) are deliberations for securing an unlawful outcome. It is against the law to promote candidates on anything other than the basis of their merits (except in very limited circumstances). Acting assistant commissioner Kate McMullan found that the people who selected the candidate contravened the Public Service Act. Therefore, the document containing deliberations that record unlawful contraventions of the Public Service are not "deliberations" for the purposes of s 47C. Even if the document is covered by s 47C, which I do not accept, the public interest test that you have applied is objectionable because you have failed to adequately acknowledge that the document was created with the purpose of contravening the Public Service Act and for promoting an unmeritorious candidate into a registrar position.

Paragraph (a)(ii)

Thank you for providing the Gazette Notice and the Promotion Notice.

I have matched the promotion number to the relevant Gazette - PS49 - 8 December 2016.

The unmeritorious candidate who was selected for the NCF Registrar position was Caitlin Wu. She was promoted from an APS4 position to an Executive Level 1 position.

Please remove the redaction that you have applied over what I assume is her name on that promotion notice.

Paragraph (a)(iii)

I adopt the same analysis set out above for paragraph (a)(i) with respect to the 3 documents identified. Please provide lawful access to them.

Paragraph (a)(iv)

How can there not be classification assessments for the registrar role? How did somebody decide to make it an EL1 position? There has to be something. Please search again and provide the document.

Paragraph (b)(i)

Typical. I take it nothing was done. That inspires confidence.

Paragraph (b)(ii)

I do not accept your reasons for decision in relation to paragraph (b)(ii).

In relation to your ss 47E(c), 47E(d) and 47F conditional exemption claims, I adopt the legal analysis that terens provided to the OAIC - see https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/i...

I also challenge the public interest claim you have made in relation to maintaining privacy over content in that document.

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

Yours faithfully,

Ashok

Dear B Henderson

The Federal Court has not, in the past, had any issues with publishing selection reports on its disclosure log - see the 12 selection report associated with "request 3" of PA2925-06/13 (https://fedcourt.gov.au/disclosurelog). Why is it such an issue now, particularly when it is obvious that the selection report was prepared for unlawful ends? If it was in the public interest to publish the selection reports in October 2020, when there were no allegations of unlawful conduct, why is it now not in the public interest when there are not only allegations of unlawful conduct, but documents evidencing unlawful conduct all over this website, now?

Please ensure that the selection report is provided according to law. By refusing access, you are only delaying the inevitable and are, in the process, tarnishing your own reputation. Is trying to sweep the management's mess under the rug for a short while worth your reputation?

Yours sincerely,

Ashok

Ashok left an annotation ()

It appears as though Terens' submissions to the OAIC have been marked for review by the site administrator. That is a pity because they are very illuminating.

I have extracted his submissions on the proper interpretation of ss 47E(c) and 47E(d) of the FOI Act, which I rely on.

They are set out below.

Context in which the FOI request was made

As you may be aware, on 8, 9 and 10 February 2022, articles were published in the Australian newspaper about questionable employment decisions made by figures in the management of the Federal Court of Australia.

The article published on 9 February 2022, Federal Court boss warned on job rule sidestep, sets out the following allegations:

a) the Court’s current General Counsel warned Sia Lagos about using individual flexibility arrangements to cheat the capped number of SES positions available to the Federal Court of Australia Statutory Agency;
b) Kate McMullan, acting assistant commissioner at the Australian Public Service Commission, claimed that the allegations of impropriety (i.e. that individual flexibility arrangements were being used to cheat the capped number of SES positions available to the Federal Court of Australia Statutory Agency) were not made out because there had been “a role review process that had resulted in certain positions being found suitable for either a Legal 2 of (SES1) position, depending on the relative complexity and work load”;
c) the Court’s assistant people and culture director, Mr Matt Asquith, admitted that decisions to classify “registrars into EL2 and SES1 bands is primarily based not only on the additional responsibilities undertaken, but ‘The SES cap the Court has, and if the positions can fit within the cap’”.

Ms McMullan’s conclusion that the allegations of impropriety (i.e. that individual flexibility arrangements were being used to cheat the capped number of SES positions available to the Federal Court of Australia Statutory Agency) were not made out because there had been “a role review process that had resulted in certain positions being found suitable for either a Legal 2 of (SES1) position, depending on the relative complexity and work load” is incorrect.

A broadband means that "where there are elements of work at two or more classifications that are very similar in nature, but vary in complexity, then an agency head may choose to broadband those classifications": Australian Public Service Classification Guide (see - https://www.apsc.gov.au/working-aps/aps-...).

Subrule 9(4) of the Public Service Classification Rules 2000 provides:

If a group of duties to be performed in an Agency involves work value applying to more than one classification, the Agency Head may allocate more than one classification (called a broadband) to the group of duties.

Subrule 9(5) of the Public Service Classification Rules 2000 provides:

However, subrule (4) does not apply to a group of duties to be performed by an SES employee.

Plainly, it is against the law to apply a broadband to a vacancies where one of the classifications within the broadband is a senior executive service classification. So much has also been confirmed by Ms Bridie Dawson, an Assistant Secretary in the Attorney-General’s Department (see https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s...).

Ms McMullan’s conclusion that “a role review process that had resulted in certain positions being found suitable for either a Legal 2 of (SES1) position, depending on the relative complexity and work load” and nothing improper had occurred cannot be accepted because Ms McMullan made a fundamental error of law. It is worth noting that Ms McMullan’s investigation, which was conducted under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 (https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/o...), is now the subject of a category 4 investigation under the Ombudsman Act (see the article ‘Spotlight shines back on watchdog’ published on page 3 of the Australian on 29 March 2022).

In summary, my FOI request was made to try and apprehend the extent of the seeming unlawful conduct engaged in by senior management figures in the Federal Court of Australia, which was not adequately investigated by Kate McMullan, an acting assistant commissioner in the Australian Public Service Commission ...

Section 47E(c)

Section 47E(c) of the FOI Act provides:

A document is conditionally exempt if its disclosure under this Act would, or could reasonably be expected to, do any of the following:



(c) have a substantial adverse effect on the management or assessment of personnel or by an agency.

Ms Hammerton Cole claimed that:

The IFAs captured by your FOI request are clearly related to the “management of personnel”, given they are specifically related to the compensation and recruitment of Court employees, and the “assessment of personnel”, given the compensation provided for in the IFAs reflects the skills, knowledge, experience and attributes of those particular employees.

Ms Hammerton Cole’s assessment of whether the documents would, or could reasonably be expected to, have a substantial adverse effect on the Commonwealth or agency was separated from her assessment of whether the documents related to the “management of personnel” or the “assessment of personnel”. What is set out in the passage above amounts to her reasons that the documents relate to the “management of personnel” or the “assessment of personnel” by an agency or the Commonwealth.

There are fundamental assumptions that inform statutory interpretation. One of those fundamental assumptions is the assumption of legality. This assumption was elegantly expressed by Isaacs J in Ex parte Walsh and Johnson; In Re Yates (1925) CLR 36:

… even where Parliament confessedly possesses plenary within it own territory, the full literal intention will not be ordinarily ascribed to general words where that would conflict with recognised principles that Parliament would be prima facie expected to respect. Something unequivocal must be found, either in the context or the circumstances, to overcome the presumption.

It could not be assumed that Parliament intended the meaning of the “management of personnel” by the Commonwealth or an agency to extend to the unlawful management of personnel, or to the mismanagement of personnel, by the Commonwealth or an agency. By the same token, it could not be assumed that Parliament intended the meaning of “assessment of personnel” to extend to the “assessment of personnel” by the Commonwealth or an agency for unlawful ends.

“Management of personnel”

Ms Hammerton Cole claims that the “IFAs captured by your FOI request are clearly related to the “management of personnel”, given they are specifically related to the compensation and recruitment of Court employees”.

For the following reasons, Ms Hammerton Cole’s statement about the IFAs being “clearly related to the management of personnel” is wrong.

To date, the Federal Court has refused, either explicitly (by reference to s 24A of the FOI Act) or functionally, to provide access to he positions description for the “Legal 2” (which I take to mean Executive Level 2) National Judicial Registrar role (see https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/r...).

The Federal Court has refused to provide access to the classification evaluation documents for the “Legal 2” National Judicial Registrar role (see https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/r...).

The Federal Court has even refused to provide access to vacancy notifications that would have been published for people to apply for the “Legal 2” National Judicial Registrar positions. The only thing that the Federal Court has provided access to is the position description for the National Judicial Registrar position (see pages 35-40 of the document associated with PA2925-06/8 on the Federal Court's disclosure log at https://fedcourt.gov.au/disclosurelog), which clearly sets out that the National Judicial Registrar role is a Senior Executive Band 1 role.

So it would appear that the National Judicial Registrar role is an SES Band 1 role. That is also supported by the nomenclature adopted for the role.

There are goofy naming conventions that have been adopted with respect to the pecking order of Federal Court registrars.

Executive Level 1 Registrars of the Federal Court are referred to as “National Registrars” (see Public Service Gazette No PS19 - 10 May 2018, pages 40 and 41).

Executive Level 2 Registrars of the Federal Court are referred to as “Judicial Registrars” (or some variation of that) (see Public Service Gazette No PS25 - 20 June 2019, pages 35 to 36; Public Service Gazette No PS13 - 29 March 2018, pages 27 to 28; Public Service Gazette No PS19 - 10 May 2018, pages 39 to 40; Public Service Gazette No PS19 - 10 May 2018, pages 41 to 43; Public Service Gazette No PS19 - 10 May 2018, pages 37 to 39).

SES Band 1 Registrars of the Federal Court are referred to as “National Judicial Registrars” (or some variation of that) (see Public Service Gazette No PS10 - 8 March 2018, pages 23 to 24; Public Service Gazette No PS19 - 10 May 2018, pages 43 to 44; Public Service Gazette No PS19 - 10 May 2018, pages 34 to 36).

SES Band 2 Registrars of the Federal Court are referred to as “Senior National Judicial Registrars” (or some variation of that (see Public Service Gazette No PS19 - 10 May 2018, pages 32 to 34; Public Service Gazette No PS22 - 30 May 2019, page 42; Public Service Gazette No PS25 - 20 June 2019, page 33).

This nomenclature strongly suggests that the “National Judicial Registrar” roles are classified at the Senior Executive Band 1 level.

It is also against the law for a role to be classified across more than one classification “depending on the relative complexity and work load” of that role (i.e. a broadband) where one of those classifications is a Senior Executive Band classification (see subrules 9(4) and 9(5) of the Public Service Classification Rules 2000 (Cth)). So it is impermissible for the “National Judicial Registrar” role to be classified across both the Executive Level 2 and SES Band 1 classification bands (contrary to Ms McMullan’s conclusion that it is not improper, which is probably one reason why the Commonwealth Ombudsman has mounted an investigation of Ms McMullan’s PID investigation).

The overwhelming weight of evidence and information supports the conclusion that the IFAs that were provided to the “Legal 2” National Judicial Registrars were provided to cheat the capped number of SES available in the Federal Court of Australia Statutory Agency.

Therefore, Ms Hammerton Cole’s claim that “IFAs captured by your FOI request are clearly related to the “management of personnel”, given they are specifically related to the compensation and recruitment of Court employees” is wrong.

The management of personnel does not extend to the mismanagement or unlawful management of personnel. The management of personnel does not extend to the compensation and recruitment of Court personnel where that compensation has been provided for unlawful ends, and where the recruitment was conducted contrary to law. Document disclosing mismanagement or unlawful management cannot be conditionally exempt under s 47E(c) of the FOI Act because s 47E(c) only extends to documents relating to (lawful) management. To interpret the word “management” to extend to “unlawful management” or “mismanagement” would be to undermine a fundamental tenet of statutory interpretation - Parliament assumes legality. Such an interpretation would not be a purposive interpretation of the FOI Act, which Ms Hammerton Cole is compelled to adopt where such an interpretation is open to her (see s 15AA of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth)). Among the explicitly stated purposes of the FOI Act, one will find the following in s 3 of that Act:

The Parliament intends, by these objects, to promote Australia’s representative democracy by contributing towards the following:

a) increasing public participation in Government processes with a view to promoting better-informed decision making;
b) increasing scrutiny, discussion, comment and review of the Government’s activities.

In the face of overwhelming evidence that the documents (the IFAs) were brought into existence contrary to law and with the purpose of cheating policies imposed on agencies and departments by the Australian Public Service Commission for the efficient operation of the Australian Public Service, Ms Hammerton Cole’s characterisation of documents as being related to the management of personnel is exposed for what it is - bunk. And this is before the test of whether a substantial adverse effect on the management of personnel by the Commonwealth or an agency is even applied. It would be futile to address Ms Hammerton Cole’s “reasons” that the disclosure of the documents would, or could reasonably be expected to, have a substantial adverse effect because the documents are plainly not about the management of personnel.

“Assessment of personnel”

I question whether the documents, being IFAs, could be characterised as extending to the “assessment of personnel”. I think it would be a stretch to claim that IFAs relate to the assessment of personnel because the IFAs that were entered into were not about assessment of personnel. They were entered into to provide additional payments to people who would have otherwise been allocated Senior Executive Band 1 classification under rule 6 of the Public Service Classifications Rules 2000. But let it be supposed that Ms Hammerton Cole’s dubious characterisation applies.

As noted, it could not be assumed that Parliament intended the meaning of the “assessment of personnel” by the Commonwealth or an agency to extend to assessments for unlawful ends.

I adopt the reasons that I have set out under the subheading “Management of personnel” and conclude that Ms Hammerton Cole’s characterisation of documents as being related to the assessment of personnel is exposed for what it is - bunk. And this is before the test of whether a substantial adverse effect on the assessment of personnel by the Commonwealth or an agency is even applied. It would be futile to address Ms Hammerton Cole’s “reasons” that the disclosure of the documents would, or could reasonably be expected to, have a substantial adverse effect because the documents are plainly not about the assessment of personnel.

Accordingly, s 47E(c) has not application to the eight IFAs identified by Ms Hammerton Cole.

Section 47E(d)

Section 47E(d) of the FOI Act provides:

A document is conditionally exempt if its disclosure under this Act would, or could reasonably be expected to, do any of the following:



(d) have a substantial adverse effect on the proper and efficient conduct of the operations of an agency.

Ms Hammerton Cole claimed that:

The FOI Guidelines provide the following elaboration on paragraph 47E(d):

6.123 The predicted effect must bear on the agency’s ‘proper and efficient’ operations, that is, the agency is undertaking its expected activities in an expected manner. Where disclosure of the documents reveals unlawful activities or inefficiencies, this element of the conditional exemption will not be met and the conditional exemption will not apply.

The release of the IFAs captured by your request would clearly bear on the Court’s “proper and efficient operations” given that the IFAs contain personal information about registrars of the Court who are critical to the Court’s proper and efficient operations. Registrars provide support to the Court’s Judges, as well as exercising various powers delegated by Judges and performing important statutory functions assigned to them by legislation. In addition, the release of the IFAs would impact on the Court’s future recruitment processes which would bear on the Court’s “proper and efficient operations” going forward.

Ms Hammerton Cole’s assessment of whether the documents would, or could reasonably be expected to, have a substantial adverse effect on the agency was separated from her assessment of whether the documents related to the “proper and efficient conduct of the operations of an agency”. What is set out in the passage above amounts to her reasons that the documents relate to the “proper and efficient conduct of the operations” of the Federal Court.

As I have already noted, there are fundamental assumptions that inform statutory interpretation. One of those fundamental assumptions is the assumption of legality. This assumption was elegantly expressed by Isaacs J in Ex parte Walsh and Johnson; In Re Yates (1925) CLR 36.

It could not be assumed that Parliament intended the meaning of the “proper and efficient conduct of the operations of an agency” to extend to the unlawful conduct of the operations of an agency. So much is accepted by the Information Commissioner who has, in her Guidelines, which Ms Hammerton Cole must have regard to under s 93A of the FOI Act, explicitly stated:

6.123 … Where disclosure of the documents reveals unlawful activities or inefficiencies, this element of the conditional exemption will not be met and the conditional exemption will not apply.

Ms Hammerton Cole is aware of the context in which my FOI request was made. She explicitly states in her reasons “your access request has been made in the context of the recent publication of articles in The Australian concerning the Court’s recruitment practices …”

Ms Hammerton Cole is aware that:

a) the Court’s current General Counsel warned Sia Lagos about using individual flexibility arrangements to cheat the capped number of SES positions available to the Federal Court of Australia Statutory Agency;
b) Kate McMullan, acting assistant commissioner at the Australian Public Service Commission, claimed that the allegations of impropriety (i.e. that individual flexibility arrangements were being used to cheat the capped number of SES positions available to the Federal Court of Australia Statutory Agency) were not made out because there had been “a role review process that had resulted in certain positions being found suitable for either a Legal 2 of (SES1) position, depending on the relative complexity and work load”;
c) it is against the law for a role to be classified across more than one classification band, depending on the relative complexity and workload of the role, if one of those classification bands is a Senior Executive band (see sub rules 9(4) and 9(5) of the Public Service Classification Rules 2000); and
d) the Court’s assistant people and culture director, Mr Matt Asquith, admitted that decisions to classify “registrars into EL2 and SES1 bands is primarily based not only on the additional responsibilities undertaken, but ‘The SES cap the Court has, and if the positions can fit within the cap’”.

Ms Hammerton Cole is also aware that:

the Federal Court has refused, either explicitly (by reference to s 24A of the FOI Act) or functionally, to provide access to he positions description for the “Legal 2” (which I take to mean Executive Level 2) National Judicial Registrar role (see https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/r...
the Federal Court has refused to provide access to the classification evaluation documents for the “Legal 2” National Judicial Registrar role (see https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/r... and
the Federal Court has even refused to provide access to vacancy notifications that would have been published for people to apply for the “Legal 2” National Judicial Registrar positions,

because she made those decisions.

Ms Hammerton Cole is aware that the IFAs that I have requested under the FOI Act disclose that the National Judicial Registrar positions that the “Legal 2” National Judicial Registrars were engaged to fill, or were promoted to, were the subject of unlawful broadbanding. The IFAs disclose that people in the Federal Court who exercise Federal judicial power pursuant to directions from Judges of the Federal Court were provided with financial incentives so that the management of the Federal Court could cheat the capped number of SES positions available to the agency. The IFAs disclose the details of the beneficiaries of the unlawful conduct, as well as those senior management figures who enticed them into benefiting from unlawful conduct. Nonetheless, Ms Hammerton Cole has proceeded to tell me that:

a) the release of the IFAs captured by your request would clearly bear on the Court’s “proper and efficient operations” given that the IFAs contain personal information about registrars of the Court who are critical to the Court’s proper and efficient operations; and
b) the release of the IFAs would impact the Court’s future recruitment processes which would bear on the Court’s “proper and efficient operations” going forward.

How could documents that have nothing to do with the proper and efficient operations of the Federal Court have a substantial adverse effect on the proper and efficient conduct of the operations of the Federal Court if they are granted access to?

How will the proper and efficient conduct of the Federal Court’s recruitment processes be affected by documents that disclose unlawfulness? No part of the proper and efficient operation of the Federal Court’s recruitment practices can be substantially and adversely affected because the documents have nothing to do with the proper and efficient operation of the Federal Court’s recruitment practices. The recruitment practices of the Federal Court do not extend to unlawful recruitment practices.

How will the proper and efficient conduct of the Federal Court’s operations be affected if it becomes clear that people who are exercising Federal judicial power pursuant to directions from judges have been denied their rightful classifications as Senior Executive Band 1 officials under the Public Service Classification Rules 2000? How will the proper and efficient conduct of the Federal Court’s operations be affected if the release of the documents exposes the fact that the Chief Executive Officer of the Federal Court and her delegates have deliberately undermined the laws of Australia (see rules 6 and 9 of the Public Service Classification Rules 2000) to cheat a directive issued to her by the Australian Public Service Commission to limit the number of Senior Executive positions in the Federal Court of Australia Statutory Agency?

Importantly, as Ms Hammerton Cole herself noted, “where disclosure of the documents reveals unlawful activities or inefficiencies, this element of the conditional exemption will not be met and the conditional exemption will not apply.” So how is it that Ms Hammerton Cole thinks that the documents are subject to the conditional exemption in s 47E(d)? Ms Hammerton Cole has effectively disregarded, contrary to s 93A of the FOI Act, the Guidelines issued by the Information Commissioner and has proceeded to pretend that the documents do not disclose anything unlawful or do not disclose inefficiencies ...

In the face of overwhelming evidence that the documents (the IFAs) were brought into existence contrary to law and with the purpose of cheating policies imposed on agencies and departments by the Australian Public Service Commission for the efficient operation of the Australian Public Service, Ms Hammerton Cole’s characterisation of documents as being conditionally exempt because the release of the documents would, or could reasonably be expected to, have an substantial adverse effect of the proper and efficient conduct of the operations of an agency is nonsense. The documents do not event relate to the proper and efficient conduct of the operations of the Federal Court. How could the threshold issue of “substantial adverse effect” even be contemplated if the documents have nothing to do with the proper and efficient conduct of the operations of an agency?

External FOI, Federal Court of Australia

1 Attachment

OFFICIAL
Dear Ashok

Please find attached correspondence from the Federal Court of Australia.

Kind regards

FOI Officer

show quoted sections

External FOI, Federal Court of Australia

2 Attachments

OFFICIAL
Dear Ashok

Please find attached correspondence from the Federal Court of Australia.

Kind regards

FOI Officer
Federal Court of Australia

show quoted sections

Federal Court of Australia

 
 
  [1]Office of the Australian Information Reference Code:  
Commissioner ICR_10-48904389-2590
 

 
You submitted a form called: FOI Review_
 
Your form reference code is: ICR_10-48904389-2590

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_10-48904389-2590
 

 
You submitted a form called: FOI Review_
 
Your form reference code is: ICR_10-48904389-2590

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: MR22/00834

 

By email: [FOI #8486 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 MR22/00834.

 

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.