<https://www.dropbox.com/s/kuvh3qk8w0cp01j/Draft%20Operating%20Procedure%20-%20Approach%20to%20Exemption%20and%20Permit%20Requests%20%28February%202021%29.pdf?dl=0>

What I'd asked for, amongst other things, was documents describing the
criteria for allowing international arrivals to quarantine at home
rather than in quarantine hotels. It subsequently became clear that rich
people (i.e. the ones I was interested in) were using a different
approach, which involves getting the police to designate their desired
residence as a quarantine place, which the police are willing to do
provided that the rich person pays for the required security guards.

Anyway, after much delay, which resulted in my applying to NCAT on the
basis of deemed refusal, this got to hearing on Thursday.

The day before the hearing, the department decided that they could
release the document linked above, with redactions.

As with the released Transport for NSW train documents, I'm posting this
not so much because it's interesting, but because it's really not,
though this document does at least provide some concrete information.

All the same, the fact that the agency refused to release even this much
until just before the hearing (a tactical measure which I believe is
intended to increase the chance that they can keep the redacted stuff
secret), illustrates the extent to which agencies have a knee-jerk
refusal to release information whose release is really harmless.

The Tribunal senior member indicated that a few of the redactions are
email addresses, which I said I wasn't seeking.

But one has to wonder at the consistent redaction at the bottom left of
each page.

Also, the redaction against "Documented immunisation". What could that
possibly say that needs to be kept secret?

Sylvia.

On 10-July-21 7:58 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:

The decision in my GIPA case has been released.

https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/17de4729b99ff68e3e1d50fc

I did not get anything more.

The decision reinforces my sense that the Tribunal is construing
"reasonably be expected" to mean "not impossible".

I am characterised as having "expertise in database management systems".
Those are the Tribunal's words. I only claimed some knowledge.

It has taken eleven months to get to this point, and so much has changed
that even if I'd got the information I was seeking, it would have held
little interest.

Sylvia.

On Thursday, December 23, 2021 at 3:46:35 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 10-July-21 7:58 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
>
> The decision in my GIPA case has been released.
>
> https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/17de4729b99ff68e3e1d50fc
>
> I did not get anything more.
>
> The decision reinforces my sense that the Tribunal is construing
> "reasonably be expected" to mean "not impossible".
>
> I am characterised as having "expertise in database management systems".
> Those are the Tribunal's words. I only claimed some knowledge.
>
> It has taken eleven months to get to this point, and so much has changed
> that even if I'd got the information I was seeking, it would have held
> little interest.
>
> Sylvia.

In a nutshell, what was the information you were hoping to get, and what did you end up receiving?

On 23-Dec-21 7:15 pm, Max wrote:
> On Thursday, December 23, 2021 at 3:46:35 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 10-July-21 7:58 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>
>> The decision in my GIPA case has been released.
>>
>> https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/17de4729b99ff68e3e1d50fc
>>
>> I did not get anything more.
>>
>> The decision reinforces my sense that the Tribunal is construing
>> "reasonably be expected" to mean "not impossible".
>>
>> I am characterised as having "expertise in database management systems".
>> Those are the Tribunal's words. I only claimed some knowledge.
>>
>> It has taken eleven months to get to this point, and so much has changed
>> that even if I'd got the information I was seeking, it would have held
>> little interest.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> In a nutshell, what was the information you were hoping to get, and what did you end up receiving?

In wondered whether some people - celebrities, politicians and other
people of influence - were getting preferential treatment, so I was
seeking the criteria for granting exemptions, and anonymised decisions
for those who'd got them.

In practice, it later became apparent that certain very rich people were
persuading the commissioner of police to designate their desired place
of residence as a quarantine location, on the basis that the very rich
person would pay for the security guards, and that such decisions were
not being made by NSW Health Ministry. While this still looked like one
law for the rich, it is just about supportable on the grounds that it
frees up hotel quarantine for others.

All I got was a redacted document giving some of the criteria, as linked
to in my previous posting. The Health Ministry claimed, and the Tribunal
accepted, that find the decisions would involve too great a diversion of
resources.

The redacted document is still available at

<https://www.dropbox.com/s/kuvh3qk8w0cp01j/Draft%20Operating%20Procedure%20-%20Approach%20to%20Exemption%20and%20Permit%20Requests%20%28February%202021%29.pdf?dl=0>

Sylvia.

On Thursday, December 23, 2021 at 7:02:46 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 23-Dec-21 7:15 pm, Max wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 23, 2021 at 3:46:35 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> On 10-July-21 7:58 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>
> >> The decision in my GIPA case has been released.
> >>
> >> https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/17de4729b99ff68e3e1d50fc
> >>
> >> I did not get anything more.
> >>
> >> The decision reinforces my sense that the Tribunal is construing
> >> "reasonably be expected" to mean "not impossible".
> >>
> >> I am characterised as having "expertise in database management systems".
> >> Those are the Tribunal's words. I only claimed some knowledge.
> >>
> >> It has taken eleven months to get to this point, and so much has changed
> >> that even if I'd got the information I was seeking, it would have held
> >> little interest.
> >>
> >> Sylvia.
> >
> > In a nutshell, what was the information you were hoping to get, and what did you end up receiving?
> In wondered whether some people - celebrities, politicians and other
> people of influence - were getting preferential treatment, so I was
> seeking the criteria for granting exemptions, and anonymised decisions
> for those who'd got them.
>
> In practice, it later became apparent that certain very rich people were
> persuading the commissioner of police to designate their desired place
> of residence as a quarantine location, on the basis that the very rich
> person would pay for the security guards, and that such decisions were
> not being made by NSW Health Ministry. While this still looked like one
> law for the rich, it is just about supportable on the grounds that it
> frees up hotel quarantine for others.
>

How did you know that these people had the ear of the police commissioner and were bypassing NSW Health?

> All I got was a redacted document giving some of the criteria, as linked
> to in my previous posting. The Health Ministry claimed, and the Tribunal
> accepted, that find the decisions would involve too great a diversion of
> resources.
>
> The redacted document is still available at
>
> <https://www.dropbox.com/s/kuvh3qk8w0cp01j/Draft%20Operating%20Procedure%20-%20Approach%20to%20Exemption%20and%20Permit%20Requests%20%28February%202021%29.pdf?dl=0>
>
> Sylvia.

The document is heavily redacted. I wonder if their first move is to heavily redact, then wait for you to challenge this amount of redaction.

The category of interest is "ability of a traveller to self isolate if granted an exemption". The details for this category is so redacted that you don't know anything about how they assess this factor.

Would there be any merit in taking the matter to NCAT to ask for less redactions?

On 24-Dec-21 5:16 pm, Max wrote:
> On Thursday, December 23, 2021 at 7:02:46 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 23-Dec-21 7:15 pm, Max wrote:
>>> On Thursday, December 23, 2021 at 3:46:35 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> On 10-July-21 7:58 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The decision in my GIPA case has been released.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/17de4729b99ff68e3e1d50fc
>>>>
>>>> I did not get anything more.
>>>>
>>>> The decision reinforces my sense that the Tribunal is construing
>>>> "reasonably be expected" to mean "not impossible".
>>>>
>>>> I am characterised as having "expertise in database management systems".
>>>> Those are the Tribunal's words. I only claimed some knowledge.
>>>>
>>>> It has taken eleven months to get to this point, and so much has changed
>>>> that even if I'd got the information I was seeking, it would have held
>>>> little interest.
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>>
>>> In a nutshell, what was the information you were hoping to get, and what did you end up receiving?
>> In wondered whether some people - celebrities, politicians and other
>> people of influence - were getting preferential treatment, so I was
>> seeking the criteria for granting exemptions, and anonymised decisions
>> for those who'd got them.
>>
>> In practice, it later became apparent that certain very rich people were
>> persuading the commissioner of police to designate their desired place
>> of residence as a quarantine location, on the basis that the very rich
>> person would pay for the security guards, and that such decisions were
>> not being made by NSW Health Ministry. While this still looked like one
>> law for the rich, it is just about supportable on the grounds that it
>> frees up hotel quarantine for others.
>>
>
> How did you know that these people had the ear of the police commissioner and were bypassing NSW Health?
>

I can't remember the details. But it wasn't a secret.

>
>
>> All I got was a redacted document giving some of the criteria, as linked
>> to in my previous posting. The Health Ministry claimed, and the Tribunal
>> accepted, that find the decisions would involve too great a diversion of
>> resources.
>>
>> The redacted document is still available at
>>
>> <https://www.dropbox.com/s/kuvh3qk8w0cp01j/Draft%20Operating%20Procedure%20-%20Approach%20to%20Exemption%20and%20Permit%20Requests%20%28February%202021%29.pdf?dl=0>
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> The document is heavily redacted. I wonder if their first move is to heavily redact, then wait for you to challenge this amount of redaction.

Their first move was to refuse to release any of it. The redacted
document was released to me the day before the Tribunal hearing.

>
> The category of interest is "ability of a traveller to self isolate if granted an exemption". The details for this category is so redacted that you don't know anything about how they assess this factor.
>
> Would there be any merit in taking the matter to NCAT to ask for less redactions?

This was ultimately what a good part of the hearing was about - whether
I could get the redacted parts. The decision is that I cannot.

It's unlikely I will pursue further GIPA matters before the Tribunal,
since it is clear that nothing useful comes out of it. I'll try get the
law changed.

Sylvia.

Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
> On 24-Dec-21 5:16 pm, Max wrote:
>> On Thursday, December 23, 2021 at 7:02:46 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> On 23-Dec-21 7:15 pm, Max wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, December 23, 2021 at 3:46:35 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>> On 10-July-21 7:58 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The decision in my GIPA case has been released.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/17de4729b99ff68e3e1d50fc
>>>>>
>>>>> I did not get anything more.
>>>>>
>>>>> The decision reinforces my sense that the Tribunal is construing
>>>>> "reasonably be expected" to mean "not impossible".
>>>>>
>>>>> I am characterised as having "expertise in database management
>>>>> systems".
>>>>> Those are the Tribunal's words. I only claimed some knowledge.
>>>>>
>>>>> It has taken eleven months to get to this point, and so much has
>>>>> changed
>>>>> that even if I'd got the information I was seeking, it would have held
>>>>> little interest.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sylvia.
>>>>
>>>> In a nutshell, what was the information you were hoping to get, and
>>>> what did you end up receiving?
>>> In wondered whether some people - celebrities, politicians and other
>>> people of influence - were getting preferential treatment, so I was
>>> seeking the criteria for granting exemptions, and anonymised decisions
>>> for those who'd got them.
>>>
>>> In practice, it later became apparent that certain very rich people were
>>> persuading the commissioner of police to designate their desired place
>>> of residence as a quarantine location, on the basis that the very rich
>>> person would pay for the security guards, and that such decisions were
>>> not being made by NSW Health Ministry. While this still looked like one
>>> law for the rich, it is just about supportable on the grounds that it
>>> frees up hotel quarantine for others.
>>>
>>
>> How did you know that these people had the ear of the police commissioner
>> and were bypassing NSW Health?
>>
>
> I can't remember the details. But it wasn't a secret.
>
>>
>>
>>> All I got was a redacted document giving some of the criteria, as linked
>>> to in my previous posting. The Health Ministry claimed, and the Tribunal
>>> accepted, that find the decisions would involve too great a diversion of
>>> resources.
>>>
>>> The redacted document is still available at
>>>
>>> <https://www.dropbox.com/s/kuvh3qk8w0cp01j/Draft%20Operating%20Procedure%20-%20Approach%20to%20Exemption%20and%20Permit%20Requests%20%28February%202021%29.pdf?dl=0>
>>>
>>> Sylvia.
>>
>> The document is heavily redacted. I wonder if their first move is to
>> heavily redact, then wait for you to challenge this amount of redaction.
>
> Their first move was to refuse to release any of it. The redacted document
> was released to me the day before the Tribunal hearing.
>
>>
>> The category of interest is "ability of a traveller to self isolate if
>> granted an exemption". The details for this category is so redacted that
>> you don't know anything about how they assess this factor.
>>
>> Would there be any merit in taking the matter to NCAT to ask for less
>> redactions?
>
> This was ultimately what a good part of the hearing was about - whether I
> could get the redacted parts. The decision is that I cannot.
>
> It's unlikely I will pursue further GIPA matters before the Tribunal,
> since it is clear that nothing useful comes out of it.

> I'll try get the law changed.

Not going to happen.

On 24-Dec-21 8:22 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>> On 24-Dec-21 5:16 pm, Max wrote:
>>> On Thursday, December 23, 2021 at 7:02:46 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> On 23-Dec-21 7:15 pm, Max wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, December 23, 2021 at 3:46:35 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On 10-July-21 7:58 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The decision in my GIPA case has been released.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/17de4729b99ff68e3e1d50fc
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I did not get anything more.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The decision reinforces my sense that the Tribunal is construing
>>>>>> "reasonably be expected" to mean "not impossible".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am characterised as having "expertise in database management
>>>>>> systems".
>>>>>> Those are the Tribunal's words. I only claimed some knowledge.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It has taken eleven months to get to this point, and so much has
>>>>>> changed
>>>>>> that even if I'd got the information I was seeking, it would have
>>>>>> held
>>>>>> little interest.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sylvia.
>>>>>
>>>>> In a nutshell, what was the information you were hoping to get, and
>>>>> what did you end up receiving?
>>>> In wondered whether some people - celebrities, politicians and other
>>>> people of influence - were getting preferential treatment, so I was
>>>> seeking the criteria for granting exemptions, and anonymised decisions
>>>> for those who'd got them.
>>>>
>>>> In practice, it later became apparent that certain very rich people
>>>> were
>>>> persuading the commissioner of police to designate their desired place
>>>> of residence as a quarantine location, on the basis that the very rich
>>>> person would pay for the security guards, and that such decisions were
>>>> not being made by NSW Health Ministry. While this still looked like one
>>>> law for the rich, it is just about supportable on the grounds that it
>>>> frees up hotel quarantine for others.
>>>>
>>>
>>> How did you know that these people had the ear of the police
>>> commissioner and were bypassing NSW Health?
>>>
>>
>> I can't remember the details. But it wasn't a secret.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> All I got was a redacted document giving some of the criteria, as
>>>> linked
>>>> to in my previous posting. The Health Ministry claimed, and the
>>>> Tribunal
>>>> accepted, that find the decisions would involve too great a
>>>> diversion of
>>>> resources.
>>>>
>>>> The redacted document is still available at
>>>>
>>>> <https://www.dropbox.com/s/kuvh3qk8w0cp01j/Draft%20Operating%20Procedure%20-%20Approach%20to%20Exemption%20and%20Permit%20Requests%20%28February%202021%29.pdf?dl=0>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>>
>>> The document is heavily redacted. I wonder if their first move is to
>>> heavily redact, then wait for you to challenge this amount of redaction.
>>
>> Their first move was to refuse to release any of it. The redacted
>> document was released to me the day before the Tribunal hearing.
>>
>>>
>>> The category of interest is "ability of a traveller to self isolate
>>> if granted an exemption". The details for this category is so
>>> redacted that you don't know anything about how they assess this factor.
>>>
>>> Would there be any merit in taking the matter to NCAT to ask for less
>>> redactions?
>>
>> This was ultimately what a good part of the hearing was about -
>> whether I could get the redacted parts. The decision is that I cannot.
>>
>> It's unlikely I will pursue further GIPA matters before the Tribunal,
>> since it is clear that nothing useful comes out of it.
>
>> I'll try get the law changed.
>
> Not going to happen.
>
>

Clearly not if I follow your philosophy.

Sylvia.

Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>> On 24-Dec-21 5:16 pm, Max wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, December 23, 2021 at 7:02:46 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>> On 23-Dec-21 7:15 pm, Max wrote:
>>>>>> On Thursday, December 23, 2021 at 3:46:35 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10-July-21 7:58 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The decision in my GIPA case has been released.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/17de4729b99ff68e3e1d50fc
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I did not get anything more.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The decision reinforces my sense that the Tribunal is construing
>>>>>>> "reasonably be expected" to mean "not impossible".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am characterised as having "expertise in database management
>>>>>>> systems".
>>>>>>> Those are the Tribunal's words. I only claimed some knowledge.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It has taken eleven months to get to this point, and so much has
>>>>>>> changed
>>>>>>> that even if I'd got the information I was seeking, it would have
>>>>>>> held
>>>>>>> little interest.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sylvia.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In a nutshell, what was the information you were hoping to get, and
>>>>>> what did you end up receiving?
>>>>> In wondered whether some people - celebrities, politicians and other
>>>>> people of influence - were getting preferential treatment, so I was
>>>>> seeking the criteria for granting exemptions, and anonymised decisions
>>>>> for those who'd got them.
>>>>>
>>>>> In practice, it later became apparent that certain very rich people
>>>>> were
>>>>> persuading the commissioner of police to designate their desired place
>>>>> of residence as a quarantine location, on the basis that the very rich
>>>>> person would pay for the security guards, and that such decisions were
>>>>> not being made by NSW Health Ministry. While this still looked like
>>>>> one
>>>>> law for the rich, it is just about supportable on the grounds that it
>>>>> frees up hotel quarantine for others.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How did you know that these people had the ear of the police
>>>> commissioner and were bypassing NSW Health?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I can't remember the details. But it wasn't a secret.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> All I got was a redacted document giving some of the criteria, as
>>>>> linked
>>>>> to in my previous posting. The Health Ministry claimed, and the
>>>>> Tribunal
>>>>> accepted, that find the decisions would involve too great a diversion
>>>>> of
>>>>> resources.
>>>>>
>>>>> The redacted document is still available at
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://www.dropbox.com/s/kuvh3qk8w0cp01j/Draft%20Operating%20Procedure%20-%20Approach%20to%20Exemption%20and%20Permit%20Requests%20%28February%202021%29.pdf?dl=0>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sylvia.
>>>>
>>>> The document is heavily redacted. I wonder if their first move is to
>>>> heavily redact, then wait for you to challenge this amount of
>>>> redaction.
>>>
>>> Their first move was to refuse to release any of it. The redacted
>>> document was released to me the day before the Tribunal hearing.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The category of interest is "ability of a traveller to self isolate if
>>>> granted an exemption". The details for this category is so redacted
>>>> that you don't know anything about how they assess this factor.
>>>>
>>>> Would there be any merit in taking the matter to NCAT to ask for less
>>>> redactions?
>>>
>>> This was ultimately what a good part of the hearing was about - whether
>>> I could get the redacted parts. The decision is that I cannot.
>>>
>>> It's unlikely I will pursue further GIPA matters before the Tribunal,
>>> since it is clear that nothing useful comes out of it.
>>
>>> I'll try get the law changed.
>>
>> Not going to happen.
>>
>>
> Clearly not if I follow your philosophy.

Even if you don’t, you still wont get that law changed.

On Saturday, December 25, 2021 at 10:06:41 AM UTC+10, Rod Speed wrote:
> Sylvia Else <syl...@email.invalid> wrote
> > Rod Speed wrote
> >> Sylvia Else <syl...@email.invalid> wrote
> >>> On 24-Dec-21 5:16 pm, Max wrote:
> >>>> On Thursday, December 23, 2021 at 7:02:46 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>>>> On 23-Dec-21 7:15 pm, Max wrote:
> >>>>>> On Thursday, December 23, 2021 at 3:46:35 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 10-July-21 7:58 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The decision in my GIPA case has been released.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/17de4729b99ff68e3e1d50fc
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I did not get anything more.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The decision reinforces my sense that the Tribunal is construing
> >>>>>>> "reasonably be expected" to mean "not impossible".
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I am characterised as having "expertise in database management
> >>>>>>> systems".
> >>>>>>> Those are the Tribunal's words. I only claimed some knowledge.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It has taken eleven months to get to this point, and so much has
> >>>>>>> changed
> >>>>>>> that even if I'd got the information I was seeking, it would have
> >>>>>>> held
> >>>>>>> little interest.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Sylvia.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In a nutshell, what was the information you were hoping to get, and
> >>>>>> what did you end up receiving?
> >>>>> In wondered whether some people - celebrities, politicians and other
> >>>>> people of influence - were getting preferential treatment, so I was
> >>>>> seeking the criteria for granting exemptions, and anonymised decisions
> >>>>> for those who'd got them.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In practice, it later became apparent that certain very rich people
> >>>>> were
> >>>>> persuading the commissioner of police to designate their desired place
> >>>>> of residence as a quarantine location, on the basis that the very rich
> >>>>> person would pay for the security guards, and that such decisions were
> >>>>> not being made by NSW Health Ministry. While this still looked like
> >>>>> one
> >>>>> law for the rich, it is just about supportable on the grounds that it
> >>>>> frees up hotel quarantine for others.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> How did you know that these people had the ear of the police
> >>>> commissioner and were bypassing NSW Health?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I can't remember the details. But it wasn't a secret.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> All I got was a redacted document giving some of the criteria, as
> >>>>> linked
> >>>>> to in my previous posting. The Health Ministry claimed, and the
> >>>>> Tribunal
> >>>>> accepted, that find the decisions would involve too great a diversion
> >>>>> of
> >>>>> resources.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The redacted document is still available at
> >>>>>
> >>>>> <https://www.dropbox.com/s/kuvh3qk8w0cp01j/Draft%20Operating%20Procedure%20-%20Approach%20to%20Exemption%20and%20Permit%20Requests%20%28February%202021%29.pdf?dl=0>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sylvia.
> >>>>
> >>>> The document is heavily redacted. I wonder if their first move is to
> >>>> heavily redact, then wait for you to challenge this amount of
> >>>> redaction.
> >>>
> >>> Their first move was to refuse to release any of it. The redacted
> >>> document was released to me the day before the Tribunal hearing.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The category of interest is "ability of a traveller to self isolate if
> >>>> granted an exemption". The details for this category is so redacted
> >>>> that you don't know anything about how they assess this factor.
> >>>>
> >>>> Would there be any merit in taking the matter to NCAT to ask for less
> >>>> redactions?
> >>>
> >>> This was ultimately what a good part of the hearing was about - whether
> >>> I could get the redacted parts. The decision is that I cannot.
> >>>
> >>> It's unlikely I will pursue further GIPA matters before the Tribunal,
> >>> since it is clear that nothing useful comes out of it.
> >>
> >>> I'll try get the law changed.
> >>
> >> Not going to happen.
> >>
> >>
> > Clearly not if I follow your philosophy.
> Even if you don’t, you still wont get that law changed.

How do you know that? What if she talks to a member of parliament and brings about a legislative change?

Max <maxnews23@gmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Sylvia Else <syl...@email.invalid> wrote
>> > Rod Speed wrote
>> >> Sylvia Else <syl...@email.invalid> wrote
>> >>> On 24-Dec-21 5:16 pm, Max wrote:
>> >>>> On Thursday, December 23, 2021 at 7:02:46 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>>> On 23-Dec-21 7:15 pm, Max wrote:
>> >>>>>> On Thursday, December 23, 2021 at 3:46:35 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else
>> >>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>> On 10-July-21 7:58 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> The decision in my GIPA case has been released.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/17de4729b99ff68e3e1d50fc
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> I did not get anything more.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> The decision reinforces my sense that the Tribunal is construing
>> >>>>>>> "reasonably be expected" to mean "not impossible".
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> I am characterised as having "expertise in database management
>> >>>>>>> systems".
>> >>>>>>> Those are the Tribunal's words. I only claimed some knowledge.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> It has taken eleven months to get to this point, and so much has
>> >>>>>>> changed
>> >>>>>>> that even if I'd got the information I was seeking, it would have
>> >>>>>>> held
>> >>>>>>> little interest.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Sylvia.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> In a nutshell, what was the information you were hoping to get,
>> >>>>>> and
>> >>>>>> what did you end up receiving?
>> >>>>> In wondered whether some people - celebrities, politicians and
>> >>>>> other
>> >>>>> people of influence - were getting preferential treatment, so I was
>> >>>>> seeking the criteria for granting exemptions, and anonymised
>> >>>>> decisions
>> >>>>> for those who'd got them.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> In practice, it later became apparent that certain very rich people
>> >>>>> were
>> >>>>> persuading the commissioner of police to designate their desired
>> >>>>> place
>> >>>>> of residence as a quarantine location, on the basis that the very
>> >>>>> rich
>> >>>>> person would pay for the security guards, and that such decisions
>> >>>>> were
>> >>>>> not being made by NSW Health Ministry. While this still looked like
>> >>>>> one
>> >>>>> law for the rich, it is just about supportable on the grounds that
>> >>>>> it
>> >>>>> frees up hotel quarantine for others.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> How did you know that these people had the ear of the police
>> >>>> commissioner and were bypassing NSW Health?
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> I can't remember the details. But it wasn't a secret.
>> >>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> All I got was a redacted document giving some of the criteria, as
>> >>>>> linked
>> >>>>> to in my previous posting. The Health Ministry claimed, and the
>> >>>>> Tribunal
>> >>>>> accepted, that find the decisions would involve too great a
>> >>>>> diversion
>> >>>>> of
>> >>>>> resources.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> The redacted document is still available at
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> <https://www.dropbox.com/s/kuvh3qk8w0cp01j/Draft%20Operating%20Procedure%20-%20Approach%20to%20Exemption%20and%20Permit%20Requests%20%28February%202021%29.pdf?dl=0>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Sylvia.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The document is heavily redacted. I wonder if their first move is to
>> >>>> heavily redact, then wait for you to challenge this amount of
>> >>>> redaction.
>> >>>
>> >>> Their first move was to refuse to release any of it. The redacted
>> >>> document was released to me the day before the Tribunal hearing.
>> >>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The category of interest is "ability of a traveller to self isolate
>> >>>> if
>> >>>> granted an exemption". The details for this category is so redacted
>> >>>> that you don't know anything about how they assess this factor.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Would there be any merit in taking the matter to NCAT to ask for
>> >>>> less
>> >>>> redactions?
>> >>>
>> >>> This was ultimately what a good part of the hearing was about -
>> >>> whether
>> >>> I could get the redacted parts. The decision is that I cannot.
>> >>>
>> >>> It's unlikely I will pursue further GIPA matters before the Tribunal,
>> >>> since it is clear that nothing useful comes out of it.
>> >>
>> >>> I'll try get the law changed.
>> >>
>> >> Not going to happen.
>> >>
>> >>
>> > Clearly not if I follow your philosophy.

>> Even if you don’t, you still wont get that law changed.
>
> How do you know that?

She never has ever got any law changed and laws don’t get changed that way.

> What if she talks to a member of parliament

A single member of parliament doesn’t get to change any law.

> and brings about a legislative change?

Not going to happen.

On 25-Dec-21 2:56 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>
> She never has ever got any law changed and laws don’t get changed that way.

I got the Aviation Transport Security Regulations changed after pointing
out, via a letter to the Sydney Morning Herald, that the regulations
criminalised making some true statements. For example, if one saw a
package marked "bomb" on an aircraft, it would be an offence to report that.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/num_reg/atsr2005n18o2005540/s9.01.html

(That link is to the regulation as made).

Sylvia.

Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote

>> She never has ever got any law changed and laws don’t get changed that
>> way.

> I got the Aviation Transport Security Regulations changed after pointing
> out, via a letter to the Sydney Morning Herald, that the regulations
> criminalised making some true statements.

Bullshit you did.

> For example, if one saw a package marked "bomb" on an aircraft, it would
> be an offence to report that.

Bullshit it would. (1)(b) says nothing even remotely like that.

> http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/num_reg/atsr2005n18o2005540/s9.01.html

> (That link is to the regulation as made).

On 25-Dec-21 4:41 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>
>>> She never has ever got any law changed and laws don’t get changed
>>> that way.
>
>> I got the Aviation Transport Security Regulations changed after
>> pointing out, via a letter to the Sydney Morning Herald, that the
>> regulations criminalised making some true statements.
>
> Bullshit you did.
>
>> For example, if one saw a package marked "bomb" on an aircraft, it
>> would be an offence to report that.
>
> Bullshit it would. (1)(b) says nothing even remotely like that.
>
>> http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/num_reg/atsr2005n18o2005540/s9.01.html
>>
>
>> (That link is to the regulation as made).
>
>

On 25-Dec-21 4:41 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>
>>> She never has ever got any law changed and laws don’t get changed
>>> that way.
>
>> I got the Aviation Transport Security Regulations changed after
>> pointing out, via a letter to the Sydney Morning Herald, that the
>> regulations criminalised making some true statements.
>
> Bullshit you did.
>
>> For example, if one saw a package marked "bomb" on an aircraft, it
>> would be an offence to report that.
>
> Bullshit it would. (1)(b) says nothing even remotely like that.
>
>> http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/num_reg/atsr2005n18o2005540/s9.01.html
>>
>
>> (That link is to the regulation as made).
>
>

If a bomb has been placed onto an aircraft, then an act of unlawful
interference has been committed.

A statement that a bomb has been placed on an aircraft is then caught by
(1)(b), and it doesn't matter that it is true.

Sylvia.

Sylvia Else wrote:
==============
> >
> >> http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/num_reg/atsr2005n18o2005540/s9.01.html
>>
> >> (That link is to the regulation as made).
> >
> >
> If a bomb has been placed onto an aircraft, then an act of unlawful
> interference has been committed.
>
> A statement that a bomb has been placed on an aircraft is then caught by
> (1)(b), and it doesn't matter that it is true.
>
>
** How would someone know that a bomb had been placed ?

1. They placed it ?
2. They can see one under their seat or in the bathroom ?

....... Phil

Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote

>>>> She never has ever got any law changed and laws don’t get changed that
>>>> way.

>>> I got the Aviation Transport Security Regulations changed after pointing
>>> out, via a letter to the Sydney Morning Herald, that the regulations
>>> criminalised making some true statements.

>> Bullshit you did.

>>> For example, if one saw a package marked "bomb" on an aircraft, it would
>>> be an offence to report that.

>> Bullshit it would. (1)(b) says nothing even remotely like that.

>>> http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/num_reg/atsr2005n18o2005540/s9.01.html

>>> (That link is to the regulation as made).

> If a bomb has been placed onto an aircraft, then an act of unlawful
> interference has been committed.

Yes.

> A statement that a bomb has been placed on an aircraft is then caught by
> (1)(b),

Wrong when someone else reports it.

> and it doesn't matter that it is true.

Wrong. (1)(b) is talking about the PERP stating that
an act of unlawful interference has been committed.
And someone else reporting it isn't a THREAT to do
something either.

And something marked "bomb" isn't even an act of unlawful interference

On 25-Dec-21 5:16 pm, Phil Allison wrote:
> Sylvia Else wrote:
> ==============
>>>
>>>> http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/num_reg/atsr2005n18o2005540/s9.01.html
>>>
>>>> (That link is to the regulation as made).
>>>
>>>
>> If a bomb has been placed onto an aircraft, then an act of unlawful
>> interference has been committed.
>>
>> A statement that a bomb has been placed on an aircraft is then caught by
>> (1)(b), and it doesn't matter that it is true.
>>
>>
> ** How would someone know that a bomb had been placed ?
>
> 1. They placed it ?
>
> 2. They can see one under their seat or in the bathroom ?
>
>
>
>
> ...... Phil
>
>
>
They might see it.

Sylvia.

On 25-Dec-21 5:16 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>
>>>>> She never has ever got any law changed and laws don’t get changed
>>>>> that way.
>
>>>> I got the Aviation Transport Security Regulations changed after
>>>> pointing out, via a letter to the Sydney Morning Herald, that the
>>>> regulations criminalised making some true statements.
>
>>> Bullshit you did.
>
>>>> For example, if one saw a package marked "bomb" on an aircraft, it
>>>> would be an offence to report that.
>
>>> Bullshit it would. (1)(b) says nothing even remotely like that.
>
>>>> http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/num_reg/atsr2005n18o2005540/s9.01.html
>>>>
>
>>>> (That link is to the regulation as made).
>
>> If a bomb has been placed onto an aircraft, then an act of unlawful
>> interference has been committed.
>
> Yes.
>
>> A statement that a bomb has been placed on an aircraft is then caught
>> by (1)(b),
>
> Wrong when someone else reports it.
>
>> and it doesn't matter that it is true.
>
> Wrong. (1)(b) is talking about the PERP stating that
> an act of unlawful interference has been committed.
> And someone else reporting it isn't a THREAT to do
> something either.

That was probably what the draftsman had in mind. But the wording is clear.

>
> And something marked "bomb" isn't even an act of unlawful interference

That is not relevant.

Sylvia.

Sylvia Else wrote:
===============
>
> > Wrong. (1)(b) is talking about the PERP stating that
> > an act of unlawful interference has been committed.
> >
>
> That was probably what the draftsman had in mind.
>
** Really ??

Parliament decided to make it a crime for a bomber to warn when a bomb was on board a plane ?
Think pax would rather authorities knew .....

...... Phil

Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote

>>>>>> She never has ever got any law changed and laws don’t get changed
>>>>>> that way.
>>
>>>>> I got the Aviation Transport Security Regulations changed after
>>>>> pointing out, via a letter to the Sydney Morning Herald, that the
>>>>> regulations criminalised making some true statements.
>>
>>>> Bullshit you did.
>>
>>>>> For example, if one saw a package marked "bomb" on an aircraft, it
>>>>> would be an offence to report that.
>>
>>>> Bullshit it would. (1)(b) says nothing even remotely like that.
>>
>>>>> http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/num_reg/atsr2005n18o2005540/s9.01.html
>>
>>>>> (That link is to the regulation as made).
>>
>>> If a bomb has been placed onto an aircraft, then an act of unlawful
>>> interference has been committed.
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>> A statement that a bomb has been placed on an aircraft is then caught by
>>> (1)(b),
>>
>> Wrong when someone else reports it.
>>
>>> and it doesn't matter that it is true.
>>
>> Wrong. (1)(b) is talking about the PERP stating that
>> an act of unlawful interference has been committed.
>> And someone else reporting it isn't a THREAT to do
>> something either.

> That was probably what the draftsman had in mind.

Corse it is, no probably about it.

> But the wording is clear.

Yes, that it is only talking about what the perp
does, not what someone else observes later.

>> And something marked "bomb" isn't even an act of unlawful interference

> That is not relevant.

Corse it is because reporting having observed that is what is being
discussed.

Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote
> Sylvia Else wrote

>>> Wrong. (1)(b) is talking about the PERP stating that
>>> an act of unlawful interference has been committed.

>> That was probably what the draftsman had in mind.

> Really ??

> Parliament decided to make it a crime for a bomber
> to warn when a bomb was on board a plane ?

Not warn, claim or state. So for example to get the pilot to
do something and then the perp would turn the bomb off.

And that has actually happened in this country.

> Think pax would rather authorities knew .....

Corse they would but that’s a separate issue to what the law proscribes.

Rod Speedbot has a Negative IQ:
============================>
> > Parliament decided to make it a crime for a bomber
> > to warn when a bomb was on board a plane ?
>
> Not warn, claim or state.

** False distinction - both still constitutes a warning.

> So for example to get the pilot to
> do something and then the perp would turn the bomb off.

** Not when he is on the ground, as is most likely.

> > Think pax would rather authorities knew .....

> Corse they would but that’s a separate issue

** It is the entire issue.

....... Phil

Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote

>>> Parliament decided to make it a crime for a bomber
>>> to warn when a bomb was on board a plane ?

>> Not warn, claim or state.

> False distinction

Wrong, as always.

> - both still constitutes a warning.

But the law isn't about warning, fuckwit.

>> So for example to get the pilot to do something
>> and then the perp would turn the bomb off.

> Not when he is on the ground, as is most likely.

Wrong, as always.

>>> Think pax would rather authorities knew .....

>> Corse they would but that’s a separate issue

> It is the entire issue.

Wrong, as always as far as the LAW is concerned.

Rod Speedbot has a Negative IQ:
=====================>>
> >>> Parliament decided to make it a crime for a bomber
> >>> to warn when a bomb was on board a plane ?
>
> >> Not warn, claim or state.
> > False distinction
> > Wrong, as always.
>
> > - both still constitutes a warning.
>
> But the law isn't about warning,

** There is no distinction - FUCKWIT

> >> So for example to get the pilot to do something
> >> and then the perp would turn the bomb off.
>
> > Not when he is on the ground, as is most likely.
>
> Wrong, as always.

** ROTFLMAO - what a retarded idiot !!!!

> >>> Think pax would rather authorities knew .....
>
> >> Corse they would but that’s a separate issue
> > It is the entire issue.

> Wrong,

** It is the *entire * issue here !!!!!!!!

You FUCKING AUTISTIC LUNATIC !!!