Your browser window currently does not have enough height, or is zoomed in too far to view our website content correctly. Once the window reaches the minimum required height or zoom percentage, the content will display automatically.
Alternatively, you can learn more via the links below.
This is the second part of a two-part series on Freedom of Information (or Right to Information) laws. This part discusses ‘review processes’ – that is, what can be done if you are unhappy with the FOI decision, particularly if you were refused information and you think this was incorrect.
The order of events for an FOI application and review(s) are:
We will now go through each step.
This was covered in edition four of About Time. If you missed it, try and source it at your location!
Once the first application is made, you should receive a decision by letter. The decision may be either (i) to release information, (ii) refuse to release information, or (iii) partially refuse to release information. Reasons for a refusal to release information will also be in the letter. The letter should also include information about your review rights.
The decision must be made around 25-45 days after your application is received, depending on your jurisdiction (see table below). FOI applications across the country face backlogs and are often delayed. Unless you are notified of an extension of time, the legal timeframe must be followed. A failure to deal with your application within the set time (and without them asking for an extension) is considered a refusal to provide the information. However, don’t forget to allow for mailing time when working out time frames.
Important to note, all decisions will have some identifying reference, usually found in the top section of the letter. It is important to take note of this reference. It is also important to note the date of the decision. There are strict time limits for seeking reviews, usually 20-30 days, depending on jurisdiction and depending on what stage of review you are at (see table below for details).
There are a range of legitimate reasons for an agency to refuse to release information. For example, agencies may refuse to release information that identifies third parties or that may result in operational security risks.
However, agencies can make mistakes and refuse information that should have been released. Furthermore, a failure for the agency to respond to a request for information in the required time frame without an extension is considered a refusal. This is important to understand so that people don't sit in limbo waiting, and that review options are open to you. If you believe an agency has wrongly refused to release information, including by failing to provide you with the information in time, you may challenge the decision by the following steps.
You must send your request for a review via letter to the relevant Commissioner (see the table for relevant details). Be aware, applications for review must be made within specific time frames. Time limits for applications for reviews are also provided in the table.
Your application for review must state the reference identifying the decision which you want reviewed. You should also provide the name of the agency who provided the decision and do your best to describe the reasons why you disagree with the decision. The process is designed to be accessible to people without legal assistance. A typical letter, for example, may include the following:
This is the second part of a two-part series on Freedom of Information (or Right to Information) laws. This part discusses ‘review processes’ – that is, what can be done if you are unhappy with the FOI decision, particularly if you were refused information and you think this was incorrect.
The order of events for an FOI application and review(s) are:
We will now go through each step.
This was covered in edition four of About Time. If you missed it, try and source it at your location!
Once the first application is made, you should receive a decision by letter. The decision may be either (i) to release information, (ii) refuse to release information, or (iii) partially refuse to release information. Reasons for a refusal to release information will also be in the letter. The letter should also include information about your review rights.
The decision must be made around 25-45 days after your application is received, depending on your jurisdiction (see table below). FOI applications across the country face backlogs and are often delayed. Unless you are notified of an extension of time, the legal timeframe must be followed. A failure to deal with your application within the set time (and without them asking for an extension) is considered a refusal to provide the information. However, don’t forget to allow for mailing time when working out time frames.
Important to note, all decisions will have some identifying reference, usually found in the top section of the letter. It is important to take note of this reference. It is also important to note the date of the decision. There are strict time limits for seeking reviews, usually 20-30 days, depending on jurisdiction and depending on what stage of review you are at (see table below for details).
There are a range of legitimate reasons for an agency to refuse to release information. For example, agencies may refuse to release information that identifies third parties or that may result in operational security risks.
However, agencies can make mistakes and refuse information that should have been released. Furthermore, a failure for the agency to respond to a request for information in the required time frame without an extension is considered a refusal. This is important to understand so that people don't sit in limbo waiting, and that review options are open to you. If you believe an agency has wrongly refused to release information, including by failing to provide you with the information in time, you may challenge the decision by the following steps.
You must send your request for a review via letter to the relevant Commissioner (see the table for relevant details). Be aware, applications for review must be made within specific time frames. Time limits for applications for reviews are also provided in the table.
Your application for review must state the reference identifying the decision which you want reviewed. You should also provide the name of the agency who provided the decision and do your best to describe the reasons why you disagree with the decision. The process is designed to be accessible to people without legal assistance. A typical letter, for example, may include the following:
Some jurisdictions charge fees for applications for reviewing a decision. Fee waivers can apply to if you are in financial hardship. If a fee is required and you seek a fee waiver, you should state this in your application. You will not be charged if your application for fee waiver is rejected, however your application may not be processed unless the fee is subsequently paid.
Strict time limits apply for agencies to respond to your application for review. These time limits may vary between jurisdictions, ranging from 14 to 30 days. If the agency does not respond to your request for review within the specific time frame, they are considered to have refused to make any changes to the original decision.
If you are dissatisfied with the outcome of the first review OR you do not get a response from your application for review, you may seek an ‘external review’.
The second avenue for review is commonly known as an ’external review’ and varies depending on jurisdiction. This is where an ‘external’ agency or tribunal (depending on the jurisdiction as in the table) looks at the application and makes a different decision.
There are time limits to initiate this process, usually 20 to 30 days, also depending on jurisdiction. If you do not initiate the process within the time limit, your application will likely be rejected. Specific information about time limits for reviews is usually included with the decision letter and is provided in the table.
In Queensland, South Australia, or Tasmania, an external review is initiated by writing a letter to an external reviewing agency, such as the Ombudsman (see table below). You should include the reference number of the decision and the date of outcome (if available) of the first review. You should also provide your reasons for requesting an external review (that is, the issues with the decision with reference to the outcome of the first review).
Victoria, A.C.T. or New South Wales are unique in that the avenue for external review is through the relevant Civil and Administrative Tribunal. This is not to be confused with other jurisdictions who offer tribunal reviews as a third review process, as stated below. Tribunal reviews are administered in a way that is somewhat similar in nature to court matters – that is, through hearings administered by a tribunal member. It is recommended that you contact the relevant tribunal for further information about this process before going down this path of review.
Some jurisdictions offer a further avenue for review after the ’external review’ stage. For example, South Australia and Queensland offer further reviews through their Civil and Administrative Tribunals. While the table below assists to understand the process up to the external review stage, information on further avenues for review is usually provided with any determination on an external review.
In some cases, disputes over applications for information may be brought before the courts for legal challenges. These challenges are often based on very technical points of law or procedure and usually require legal representation or advice. These avenues are outside the scope of this article.
Like any legal process, maintaining good records of relevant dates and correspondence can assist you in getting the best outcome possible. Further information about making applications for information or the review processes can be obtained from community legal service centres, relevant authorities and by reading legislation relevant to your jurisdiction.
Some jurisdictions charge fees for applications for reviewing a decision. Fee waivers can apply to if you are in financial hardship. If a fee is required and you seek a fee waiver, you should state this in your application. You will not be charged if your application for fee waiver is rejected, however your application may not be processed unless the fee is subsequently paid.
Strict time limits apply for agencies to respond to your application for review. These time limits may vary between jurisdictions, ranging from 14 to 30 days. If the agency does not respond to your request for review within the specific time frame, they are considered to have refused to make any changes to the original decision.
If you are dissatisfied with the outcome of the first review OR you do not get a response from your application for review, you may seek an ‘external review’.
The second avenue for review is commonly known as an ’external review’ and varies depending on jurisdiction. This is where an ‘external’ agency or tribunal (depending on the jurisdiction as in the table) looks at the application and makes a different decision.
There are time limits to initiate this process, usually 20 to 30 days, also depending on jurisdiction. If you do not initiate the process within the time limit, your application will likely be rejected. Specific information about time limits for reviews is usually included with the decision letter and is provided in the table.
In Queensland, South Australia, or Tasmania, an external review is initiated by writing a letter to an external reviewing agency, such as the Ombudsman (see table below). You should include the reference number of the decision and the date of outcome (if available) of the first review. You should also provide your reasons for requesting an external review (that is, the issues with the decision with reference to the outcome of the first review).
Victoria, A.C.T. or New South Wales are unique in that the avenue for external review is through the relevant Civil and Administrative Tribunal. This is not to be confused with other jurisdictions who offer tribunal reviews as a third review process, as stated below. Tribunal reviews are administered in a way that is somewhat similar in nature to court matters – that is, through hearings administered by a tribunal member. It is recommended that you contact the relevant tribunal for further information about this process before going down this path of review.
Some jurisdictions offer a further avenue for review after the ’external review’ stage. For example, South Australia and Queensland offer further reviews through their Civil and Administrative Tribunals. While the table below assists to understand the process up to the external review stage, information on further avenues for review is usually provided with any determination on an external review.
In some cases, disputes over applications for information may be brought before the courts for legal challenges. These challenges are often based on very technical points of law or procedure and usually require legal representation or advice. These avenues are outside the scope of this article.
Like any legal process, maintaining good records of relevant dates and correspondence can assist you in getting the best outcome possible. Further information about making applications for information or the review processes can be obtained from community legal service centres, relevant authorities and by reading legislation relevant to your jurisdiction.
Parole is a process that gives some people the ability to get out of prison and serve the last part of their sentence in the community, under the supervision of Community Corrections (which used to be known as Probation and Parole).
The federal election is coming up. It happens about every three years. It’s for electing the government for the whole country – the federal government.
This article discusses some of the human rights that may be relevant in prison with reference to human rights protections under the Human Rights Act 2019 (QLD) in Queensland.
In law, silence is considered a fundamental right that provides fairness in criminal proceedings.
In law, silence is considered a fundamental right that provides fairness in criminal proceedings.
This article discusses some of the human rights that may be relevant in prison with reference to human rights protections under the Human Rights Act 2019 (QLD) in Queensland.
I wonder if you could explain the new "No Body No Parole" law in New South Wales, where now people charged with murder or manslaughter need letters from the head of police?
The federal election is coming up. It happens about every three years. It’s for electing the government for the whole country – the federal government.
Help us get About Time off the ground. All donations are tax deductible and will be vital in providing an essential resource for people in prison and their loved ones.
Help us get About Time off the ground. All donations are tax deductible and will be vital in providing an essential resource for people in prison and their loved ones.
Leave a Comment
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere. uis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.