UGUR and AUSTRALIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

[2010] AATA 144

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2010] AATA 144

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No   2009/3353

GENERAL  DIVISION		)
Re		HACI UGUR

Applicant

And AUSTRALIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal   Senior Member A K Britton

Date  26 February 2010

Place  Sydney

Decision   The decision under review is affirmed

..............................................

Senior Member

CATCHWORDS

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION – whether reasonable search was performed by agency – where parts of the request overlapped a previous request considered by a differently-constituted Tribunal.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – circumstances in which the Administrative Appeals Tribunal is required to adjourn proceedings – circumstances in which the Tribunal is required to provide a person with an interpreter.

Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) – ss 3, 4, 11, 18, 22, 24A, 41, 55, 56, 61.
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act – ss 3, 20, 26, 39

Dietrich v The Queen (1994) 177 CLR 292
Colakovski v Australian Telecommunications Corporation (1991) 29 FCR 429
Perera v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 507
Nguyen v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2000) 101 FCR 20
Commissioner of Taxation v La Rosa (2002) 196 ALR 139
Chu v Telstra Corporation Limited [2005] FCA 1730
Shu Uan Eao v Commissioner of Taxation of the Commonwealth of Australia [2009] FCA 992
Adamopoulos v Olympic Airways SA (1991) 25 NSWLR 75
Re Radar Investments Pty Ltd and Health Insurance Commission (2004) 80 ALD 733
Re Edelsten and Australian Federal Police (1985) 4 AAR 220
Ugur and Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [2009] AATA 563

REASONS FOR DECISION

Senior Member A K Britton           

1.      Mr Haci Ugur applies under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) (the Act) for review of a decision made by the Australian Human Rights Commission (the HRC), in relation to his request for a copy of his “personal files”.

2.      In March 2009, the HRC released a number of documents in answer to Mr Ugur’s request. Twenty-one had parts deleted. The HRC contends that those deletions were made because the documents were exempt from disclosure, because they contained personal information about HRC employees or third parties and/or information irrelevant to Mr Ugur’s FOI request.

3.      Mr Ugur contends that the HRC failed to release all documents he had requested. He contends that the HRC’s claim to have conducted an adequate search was “entirely fabricated”.

4.      The issue I am required to determine is whether the decision not to release documents to Mr Ugur on the ground that they do not exist, and to release certain other documents with deletions, is the correct and preferable decision.  

5.      In order to put Mr Ugur’s application and the issues he contends are relevant in context, it first is necessary to set out the statutory framework in which his application was made, and the background to his application to the AAT.  

Scheme of the Act

6.      The object of the Act is to extend as far as possible the right of the Australian community to access information in…