Mr Mamdouh Habib

Senator Ludlam asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 16 December 2008:

Given the answer to a question placed on notice (Q3: Rendition of Mamdouh Habib) by former Senator Nettle during the 2008-09 Budget estimates hearing of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, on 4 June 2008, was that, ‘Defence has no record of involvement through meetings or through the provision of advice in the matter of the rendition of Mr Mamdouh Habib’:

1. How do 85 418 pages of Defence departmental documents fall within the terms of a Freedom of Information request for any reports from 1 October 2001 onwards from Defence or any of its agencies regarding the transfer and/or rendition of Mamdouh Habib to Egypt, with an associated cost of $107 145.55 including 1 038 hours to identify, examine and make decisions on the documents
2. How do 82 838 pages of Defence departmental documents fall within the terms of a Freedom of Information request for communications regarding the rendition and/or transfer of prisoners or detainees by the United States of America to other countries (particularly Egypt) for interrogation or questioning, with an associated cost of $85 603.80.
3. How is such a massive volume of documentation consistent with Defence’s contention in estimates hearings that there are no records relevant to this matter.

Senator Faulkner - The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:

1. and (2) In the case of the two requests referred to by the Senator, the process of estimating costs for identifying, retrieving and making decisions on documents was interpreted as a requirement to individually retrieve, read, and assess a very large number of documents held by Defence.  The time it would take to carry out such a search in accordance with the Freedom of Information (FOI) laws and regulations was calculated according to standard FOI costs, which resulted in the large estimate.  Since this estimate was issued, and in accordance with the most recent revision of the FOI request from the applicant, Defence has conducted secondary searches based on a more realistically defined assessment of where relevant documents are located.  This has reduced the number of documents that need to be assessed, and hence the estimated costs, considerably.  The FOI applicant is being kept informed of progress in completing this request.
3. There is no inconsistency between stating that Defence has no record of involvement in the matter of the rendition of Mr Mamdouh Habib, and having to check a large number of documents that may be relevant to an FOI request.  The FOI requests in question will capture any documents held by Defence that refer to Mr Mamdouh Habib or the issue of rendition and/or transfer of prisoners or detainees by the United States of America to other countries.  For example, Defence has on its files responses to numerous questions both in Parliament and in the media on these issues, as well as a number of reports outlining our position on these issues. 
   The estimate referred to the number of documents that would need to be checked to complete the FOI request, which ultimately may not have been found to be relevant to the request (the check of whether a document is relevant or not is part of the FOI process and must be included in the estimation).  Defence maintains its position that it has no record of involvement through meetings or through the provision of advice in the matter of the rendition of Mr Mamdouh Habib.  This is borne out by documents that have previously been released for a similar FOI request requesting all documents setting forth or discussing the legality or appropriateness of the rendition of any Australian citizen or former resident.

close