21. Part XII of the Customs Act provides ABF officers at Australia's ports with various detention and search powers. Like the Migration Act, some, but not all, decisions made under this Act are reviewable by the Tribunal.[1]
22. To the extent that the Applicant has provided the Tribunal with an FOI decision made by the AFP and evidence of documents released by the AFP and the ABF under the FOI Act, these decisions are not reviewable by the Tribunal other than under s 57A of the FOI Act, which relevantly involves decisions made by the Information Commissioner.
23. Detention and search decisions made under either the Migration Act or the Customs Act are clearly not reviewable by this Tribunal. Any decisions to prosecute the Applicant for offences against either Act would also not be reviewable.
24. Accordingly, the applications in 2024/10661 and 2024/10673 are plainly unsustainable and shall be dismissed.
The McDonald's Privacy Complaint
25. In the third application, the Applicant refers to current legal action that he has with McDonald's Australia Limited and complaints purportedly made to the Information Commissioner under the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) (Privacy Act) regarding the same.
26. A quick search on Austlii indicates that the Applicant has a long-running dispute in Queensland about this issue, commencing with a complaint made under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (QLD) to the Queensland Human Rights Commission and which was subsequently referred to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission and then appealed to the Industrial Court of Queensland.[2]
27. The Applicant has provided the Tribunal with no evidence of any decision made by the Information Commissioner that is reviewable by this Tribunal under s 96(1) of the Privacy Act.
Page 10 of 12
