KASEM AL-HIR and UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND

[2009] AATA 530

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2009] AATA 530

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No 2009/2960  

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION		)
Re		KASEM AL-HIR

Applicant

And UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Senior Member Bernard J McCabe

Date16 July 2009

PlaceBrisbane

Decision

The Tribunal:

1.     decides that it does not have jurisdiction to review the application; and

2. dismisses the application pursuant to s 42A(4) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth).

.....................[Sgd].........................

Senior Member

CATCHWORDS

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Jurisdiction – Whether Tribunal has jurisdiction to review a decision to refuse access to information under Freedom of Information Act 1992 (Qld) – No jurisdiction – Decision made under state enactment – Application dismissed

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) s 42A(4)

Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) s 4

Freedom of Information Act 1992 (Qld)

Luck v University of Southern Queensland [2009] FCAFC 73

REASONS FOR DECISION

16 July 2009 Senior Member Bernard J McCabe         

1.      

Mr Kasem Al-Hir is involved in a dispute with the University of Queensland. He has asked the University to provide him with information about some internal matters. He says the information has not been forthcoming. The Information Commissioner for the state of Queensland conducted an external review of

Mr Al-Hir’s freedom of information (“FOI”) request under the Freedom of Information Act 1992 (Qld). Mr Al-Hir is dissatisfied with the outcome, and he has asked the Tribunal to review the decision. He has made allegations about a cover-up and says his life has been endangered. He is very angry. But does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to deal with his problem?

2. The short answer is “no”. Mr Al-Hir is asking the Tribunal to review decisions made by agencies of the state of Queensland under that state’s FOI legislation. The Tribunal cannot review decisions made under the Queensland enactment, and neither of the agencies is a “prescribed authority” within the meaning of s 4 of the Commonwealth Freedom of Information Act 1982.

3.      The Information Commissioner’s letter to Mr Al-Hir of 9 February 2009 explained his appeal rights under the state FOI legislation. Specifically, he was told he could seek judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision before the Supreme Court of Queensland. I understand he has not done so. Mr Al-Hir says he obtained legal advice suggesting the Tribunal had jurisdiction. If that was the advice, it was wrong. The dispute is none of this Tribunal’s business.

4.      I have asked that Mr Al-Hir be provided with a copy of the judgment of the Full Federal Court in Luck v University of Southern Queensland [2009] FCAFC 73. The facts in that case are, for practical purposes, identical to the present. The Tribunal in that case declined to hear an application brought under the Commonwealth FOI legislation against the University of Southern Queensland. That university, like the University of Queensland in this case, is established under a state statute. The Full Court confirmed the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to deal with an FOI application in those circumstances.

5. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with this application. The proceedings must be dismissed pursuant to s 42A(4) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act1975.

I certify that the 5 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member Bernard J McCabe

Signed:...........................[Sgd]...................................................
  Michael Buckingham, Associate

Date of Hearing  16 July 2009
Date of Decision  16 July 2009
Applicant was self-represented
Respondent was self-represented