Source: https://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-information/foi-archive/foi-guidelines-archive/part-10-review-by-the-information-commissioner-version-1-1
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 12:16:01
Document Index: 531323626

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 10', 'art 10', 'art 3', 'art 8', 'art 9', 'art 3', 'art 5', 'art 12', 'art 3', 'art 5', 'art 12']

Part 10 — Review by the Information Commissioner (version 1.1)| Office of the Australian Information Commissioner - OAIC
Part 10 — Review by the Information Commissioner (version 1.1)
a decision to give access to a document to a ‘qualified person’ under s 47F(5) (where disclosing the information to the applicant might be detrimental to the applicant’s physical or mental health or well-being – see Part 3 of these Guidelines)
where the agency’s or minister’s decision was an access refusal decision (including a decision on charges and a refusal to amend or annotate a record of personal information) – the person who made the FOI request (that is, the FOI applicant) (s 54L(3))
where the decision was to grant access – a third party who is affected by that decision (s 54M(3)(a))
where the decision was made after internal review of the original access refusal decision – the person who made the request for internal review (that is, the original FOI applicant) (s 54L(3))
where the decision was made after internal review of the original decision to grant access – a third party who is affected (s 54M(3)(a)) or the person who made the FOI request (that is, the FOI applicant (s 54M(3)(b))
where the decision was to refuse to extend the period for applying for internal review of an access refusal decision (under s 54B) – the person who was seeking internal review (that is, the original FOI applicant).
10.15 Agencies and ministers must use their best endeavours to assist the Information Commissioner to make the correct or preferable decision in relation to access to information held by the Government (s 55DA). This duty is consistent with the obligation on the Commonwealth and its agencies to act as model litigants – that is, with complete propriety, fairly and in accordance with the highest professional standards as a party to proceedings, including tribunal proceedings.
if a request has been refused on the ground that it would unreasonably impact on an agency’s resources or a minister’s functions (ss 24 and 24AA) – any reasons why the applicant believes the request would not have that impact.
10.25 An FOI applicant may apply for IC review of an access refusal decision within 60 days after the day notice of the decision was given under s 26 (s 54S(1)). This time limit also applies to deemed refusals, as notice is deemed to have been given under s 26 on the last day of the initial decision period (s 15AC(3)–see Part 8 of these Guidelines). Where the FOI applicant sought internal review and the agency did not make a decision within 30 days and no extension was granted, the original decision to refuse access is taken to have been affirmed (s 54D–see Part 9 of these Guidelines).
10.26 An affected third party may apply for IC review of an access grant decision within 30 days after the day they were given notice – either under ss 26A(3), 26AA(3), 27(6) or 27A(5), or if the if the agency decision to grant access was made after internal review of the original decision, under s 54C. If the affected third party does not apply for IC review within 30 days, the agency or minister can provide access to the document, unless the Information Commissioner has granted an extension to the affected third party (ss 26A(4), 26AA(4), 27(7) and 27A(6)). The Information Commissioner will notify an agency or minister if an affected third party has applied for an extension of time. A further notice will be provided when the Information Commissioner has made a decision on that application (as noted in paragraphs 10.27–10.29 below, it may take more than two weeks for the Information Commissioner to make a decision). To minimise the possibility of dispute about the propriety or timing of a decision to release information where a third party objects, agencies and ministers are advised to check first with the Information Commissioner as to whether there are any review proceedings in progress.
10.30 The agency or minister must notify an affected third party where an FOI applicant has applied for IC review of a decision to refuse access to a document to which a consultation requirement applies (s 54P). This obligation applies whether the affected third party made a submission or was invited to make a submission but did not under s 26A (documents affecting Commonwealth-State relations), s 26AA (documents affecting Norfolk Island intergovernmental relations), s 27 (business documents) or s 27A (personal privacy) (s 54P(1) – see Part 3 of these Guidelines).
10.53 A person is immune from civil proceedings and any criminal or civil penalty if the person gives information, produces a document or answers a question in good faith for an IC review (s 55Z). The immunity applies whether the information was supplied voluntarily or under a compulsory process (for example, under s 55(2)(d) – see paragraph 10.69).
10.54 Where a document in an IC review is claimed to be exempt under the national security exemption (s 33 – see Part 5 of these Guidelines), before deciding that the document is not exempt, the Information Commissioner must ask the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security (Inspector-General) to give evidence on the likely damage if access were granted (ss 55ZA–55ZD). There are similar provisions in relation to AAT proceedings (s 60A). The Inspector-General must comply with the Information Commissioner’s request unless the Inspector-General believes they are not appropriately qualified to give evidence on those matters (s 55ZC).
10.55 This requirement is to assist the Information Commissioner to make a decision through the provision of expert advice. Because the Inspector-General is an independent statutory office holder, the evidence given is not evidence by the agency or minister who made the exemption decision.
if the Information Commissioner is satisfied the decision should be considered by the AAT (s 54W(b) – see paragraph 10.67below).
10.65 The circumstances in which an FOI application can be described as ‘frivolous or vexatious’ have been examined in various cases. The circumstances include where it is open to conclude that a series of FOI applications were made to annoy or harass agency staff and none of the applications is capable of conferring a practical benefit on the applicant.[2] See Part 12 of these Guidelines for information about vexatious applicant declarations.
10.76 The Information Commissioner may require a person to attend to answer questions for the purposes of an IC review (s 55W(1)). The person must be given a written notice that specifies the time and place when the person must attend, with the time to be not less than 14 days after the person is given the notice (s 55W(2)).It is an offence punishable by six months imprisonment to fail to comply with a notice issued by the Information Commissioner (s 55W(3)). There is a similar offence of failing to comply with a summons to appear to give evidence in AAT proceedings (ss 40 and 61 of the AAT Act).
10.83 The schedule of documents will be made available to the IC review applicant, and to other parties as considered appropriate. If the agency or minister believes this should not occur in relation to particular documents, the reasons should be spelt out clearly. Any documents that fall within the definition of s 25 (that is, where it would not be appropriate to reveal the existence or non-existence of a document – see Part 3 of these Guidelines) should be listed in a separate schedule clearly marked as confidential.
requiring the agency or minister to provide documents for which an exemption claim has been made, if these have not been provided to the IC review officer earlier (ss 55T and 55U – see paragraphs 10.72–10.74)
issuing a notice requiring any person to provide information or documents that are relevant to an IC review (s 55R – see paragraph 10.71)
giving effect to an agreement between the parties (s 55F – see paragraph 10.98)
is a document of a person, body or agency exempted under the Act (s 7 – see Part 5 of these Guidelines).
Opinions – The Information Commissioner may only recommend amendment of a record that relates to an opinion if satisfied:
Court or tribunal decision– The Information Commissioner cannot recommend that a record of a decision under an enactment by a court, tribunal, authority or person be amended (s 55M(2)(a)). Nor can the Commissioner recommend that a record be amended if that would involve determining an issue that a person either is, or could be, entitled to have decided in another process – by an agency (on internal review), the Commissioner, a court or tribunal (s 55M(2)(b)). While the scope of that limitation is not entirely clear, it would include, for example, where the Information Commissioner must make another decision first (such as deciding a request for access to the relevant documents), or where an agency must first determine a person’s eligibility for a benefit.
10.122 In relation to review of a declaration that a person is a vexatious applicant (see Part 12 of these Guidelines), note 3 to s 89N expressly refers to s 30 of the AAT Act, which sets out the parties to AAT proceedings. Section 30 states that the decision maker (in this case, the Information Commissioner) will be a party to the proceedings. The Information Commissioner’s role would be to assist the AAT and not to be a protagonist in the proceedings.[3] An agency or minister could also apply to the AAT to be made a party to those proceedings (s 30(1A) of the AAT Act).
the agency or minister seeks review of the Information Commissioner’s decision (for example that access should be given to a document because an exemption does not apply) – in this case the AAT will review a decision of the Information Commissioner (s 61(1)(a))
the FOI applicant seeks review of a decision made by the Information Commissioner (for example affirming that an exemption applies to a document and that access may be refused) – in this case the AAT will review a decision of the Information Commissioner (s 61(1)(b))
the FOI applicant applies for IC review of a decision and the Information Commissioner declines on the ground that it is desirable that the AAT undertake review – in this case the AAT will review a decision of the agency or minister (s 61(1)(b)).
[2] Ford v Child Support Registrar [2009] FCA 328, applying Attorney-General (Vic) v Wentworth (1998) 14 NSWLR 481.
[3] In line with the view expressed in R v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal; ex parte Hardiman [1980] HCA 13; (1980) 144 CLR 13 at [54]. See also s 33(1AA) of the AAT Act.