Download original attachment
(PDF file)

This is an HTML version of an attachment to the Freedom of Information request 'A copy of the DDVA human research ethics minutes'.


DEFENCE FOI 734/23/24
STATEMENT OF REASONS UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1982
1.
I refer to the request by Julie Anderson (the applicant), dated and received 5 March
2024 by the Department of Defence (Defence),for access to the following documents 
under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) (FOI Act):
I request a copy of the February 5th DDVA HREC minutes
Background
2.
On 26 March 2024 Defence wrote to the applicant advising of a 30 day extension of 
time for consultation, in accordance with section 27 of the FOI Act [Consultation –
business documents].
3.
On 11 April 2024, Defence formally consulted with third party individuals. 
FOI decision maker
4.
I am the authorised officer pursuant to section 23 of the FOI Act to make a decision on 
this FOI request.
Documents identified
5.
I have identified one document as falling within the scope of the request.
Exclusions
6.
Signatures and duplicates of documents that fall within the scope of the FOI request are 
excluded. Defence has only considered the final version of the document.
Decision
7.
I have decided to partially release the document, in accordance with section 22 [Access 
to edited copies with exempt or irrelevant matter deleted], on the grounds that material 
is considered exempt under sections:
a.
47C [Public interest conditional exemptions – deliberative processes] of the 
FOI Act; and
b.
47E [Public interest conditional exemptions – certain operations of agencies] of 
the FOI Act.
Material taken into account
8.
In making my decision, I have had regard to:
a.
the terms of the request;
b.
the content of the identified documents in issue;
c.
relevant provisions of the FOI Act; and
d.
Guidelines published by the Office of the Australian Information 
Commissioner under section 93A of the FOI Act (the Guidelines); and
e.
responses received from third party consultation.
1
REASONS FOR DECISION 
Section 22 – Access to edited copies with exempt or irrelevant matter deleted 
9. 
Section 22 of the FOI Act permits an agency to prepare and provide an edited copy of a 
document where the agency has decided to refuse access to an exempt document or that 
to give access to a document would disclose information that would reasonably be 
regarded as irrelevant to the request for access. I have relied on this exemption to 
provide you with a redacted copy of the document relevant to your request. 
10.  Upon examination of the document, I have identified that it contains exempt material 
and information (phone number and signatures) that I consider do not relate to the terms 
of your request. Where applicable, I have exempted this material from disclosure. 
11.  I am satisfied that it is reasonably practicable to remove the exempt and irrelevant 
material and release the document to you in an edited form. 
Section 47C – Public interest conditional exemptions - deliberative processes 
12.  Section 47C(1) of the FOI Act states: 
(1)  A document is conditionally exempt if its disclosure under this Act would 
disclose matter (deliberative matter) in the nature of, or relating to, opinion, 
advice or recommendation obtained, prepared or recorded, or consultation or 
deliberation that has taken place, in the course of, or for the purposes of, the 
deliberative processes involved in the functions of: 
(a)  an agency; or 
(b)  a Minister; or 
(c)  the Government of the Commonwealth. 
13.  I examined the document and identified material in the nature of, or relating to opinion, 
advice or recommendations prepared for the purposes of the deliberative processes 
involved in the functions of the agency. Release of the material identified as 
deliberative matter would, or could reasonably be expected to harm, or otherwise 
impede current and future projects being considered by Defence and DVA.   
14.  Section 47C(2)(b) of the FOI Act provides that deliberative matter does not include 
purely factual material. The Guidelines provide: 
6.70 [p]urely factual material’ does not extend to factual material that is an integral 
part of the deliberative content and purpose of a document, or is embedded in or 
intertwined with the deliberative content such that it is impractical to excise it. 
15.  I am satisfied that the document contains material that meets the definition of 
deliberative material. Where the content is purely factual, it is embedded in, or 
intertwined with the deliberative content and cannot be excised.  
16.  Accordingly, the information is exempt under section 47C of the FOI Act. 
 
 
2 
Section 47E – Public interest conditional exemptions – certain operations of agencies  
17.  Section 47E(c) of the FOI Act states: 
A document is conditionally exempt if its disclosure under this Act would, or could 
reasonably be expected to, do any of the following: 
(c)  have a substantial adverse effect on the management or assessment of 
personnel by the Commonwealth or by an agency 
18.  The Guidelines provide that: 
6.102 Where the document relates to the agency’s policies and practices in relation 
to the assessment or management of personnel, the decision maker must address 
both elements of the conditional exemption in s 47E(c), namely that: 
x 
an effect would reasonably be expected following disclosure  
x 
the expected effect would be both substantial and adverse. 
… 
6.109 In some circumstances it may be appropriate to address concerns about the 
work health and safety impacts of disclosing public servants’ personal information 
(such as names and contact details) under s 47E(c). 
19.  The document contains the personal details of Defence personnel that are not publicly 
available. Disclosing the details could reasonably be expected to have an adverse effect 
on the health and wellbeing of the individuals. There is a reasonable expectation that the 
personal details could be used inappropriately, in a manner which adversely affects the 
health, wellbeing and work of Defence personnel. Consequentially, disclosure could 
reasonably be expected to substantially adversely impact the staff management function 
of Defence in maintaining workplace health and safety standards. 
20.  I am satisfied that the identified material is unsuitable for disclosure under section 
47E(c) of the FOI Act. 
21.  Section 47E(d) of the FOI Act states: 
A document is conditionally exempt if its disclosure under this Act would, or could 
reasonably be expected to, do any of the following:  
(d)  have a substantial adverse effect on the proper and efficient conduct of the 
operations of the agency. 
22.  The Guidelines provide that: 
6.115 The predicted effect must bear on the agency’s ‘proper and efficient’ 
operations, that is, the agency is undertaking its operations in an expected manner... 
23.  There is material within the document that would, or could, reasonably be expected to 
have a substantial adverse impact on the proper and efficient conduct of Defence. 
Release of this material would disclose information about processes, methods or 
conduct that is not otherwise well-known, and which would impede proper and efficient 
operations.  
24.  Human Research Ethics Committees play a central role in facilitating ethical research. 
The Departments of Defence and Veterans’ Affairs Human Research Ethics Committee 
3 
(the Committee) scrutinises the methodologies and operation of research programs to 
provide expert, independent advice to the researchers. The document details the 
management of ethical matters and how the Committee scrutinises programs to ensure 
compliance and includes decisions and recommendations made by the Committee. It is 
reasonable to expect that disclosure of the identified material could impede the proper 
and efficient conduct of the Committee, and by extension, the proper and efficient 
conduct of Defence.  
25.  Additionally, consultation with third parties identified material that could prejudice the 
conduct of matters relating to the Veterans' Medicines Advice and Therapeutics 
Education Services (MATES) program. Disclosure could inhibit the free exchange of 
information between the Committee and third parties. All Commonwealth agencies 
have a responsibility to properly manage and safeguard private and confidential 
information, especially that pertaining to individuals or businesses.  
26.  It is reasonable to expect that disclosure may be detrimental to the efficient operations 
of the Committee, and the broader agency, including that disclosure could impact the 
effective management of information shared in confidence. I am satisfied that the 
outcome could reasonably be expected to substantially and adversely affect the proper 
and efficient conduct and operations of Defence.  
27.  Paragraph 6.112 of the Guidelines requires that I consider whether disclosure of the 
information ‘would, or could reasonably be expected to lead to a change in the agency’s 
processes that would enable those processes to be more efficient.’ The location of the 
meeting and workforce within the document are not publicly available and more 
appropriate communication channels are already available. I am satisfied that release of 
this information could not reasonably be expected to lead to an efficient change in 
Defence’s processes.  
28.  Further, in making this assessment, I note that the Terms of Reference, Standard 
Operating Procedures, and Administrative Guidelines for the Committee are publicly 
available. These documents establish and describe the role and operations of the 
Committee. In contrast, the document details specific Committee operations, including 
how decisions and/or recommendations are made that are not well known. I am satisfied 
that release could not reasonably be expected to lead to an efficient change in Defence’s 
processes. 
29.  Accordingly, I am satisfied that the information contained within the document is 
conditionally exempt under section 47E of the FOI Act. 
Public interest considerations - sections 47C and 47E  
30.  Section 11A(5) of the FOI Act states: 
The agency or Minister must give the person access to the document if it is 
conditionally exempt at a particular time unless (in the circumstances) access to the 
document at that time would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest.  
 
 
4 
31.  I have considered the factors favouring disclosure as set out in section 11B(3) [factors 
favouring access] of the FOI Act. The relevant factors being whether access to the 
document would: 
(a)  promote the objects of this Act (including all the matters set out in sections 3 
and 3A); 
(b)  inform debate on a matter of public importance; 
(c)  promote effective oversight of public expenditure. 
32.  Disclosure of the information would not increase public participation in the Defence 
process nor would it increase scrutiny or discussion of Defence activities (as required by 
section 3(2) [Objects] of the FOI Act). 
33.  I have not taken any of the factors listed in section 11B(4) [irrelevant factors] of the FOI 
Act into account when making this decision.  
34.  Paragraph 6.233 of the Guidelines specifies a non-exhaustive list of public interest 
factors against disclosure. The factors I find particularly relevant to this request are that 
release of this information could reasonably be expected to prejudice: 
x 
the personnel management function of an agency; 
x 
the management function of an agency; 
x 
an agency’s ability to obtain confidential information; and 
x 
an agency’s ability to obtain similar information in the future. 
35.  It is in the public interest that Defence undertakes its functions in a transparent and 
proper manner, and that Defence efficiently and productively operates with regard for 
the ethical principles that guide research programs. I consider that disclosing 
information about specific deliberations by the Committee limits Defence’s ability to 
effectively administer research programs and obtain confidential information. 
Additionally, I consider that disclosure could expose Defence management functions 
and would reasonably be expected to prejudice the proper and efficient conduct of 
operations.  
36.  It is in the public interest that Defence efficiently and productively operates with regard 
for the health and wellbeing of its personnel. As established above, releasing the 
personal details of Defence personnel would reasonably be expected to prejudice the 
rights of an individual to privacy, and the personnel management functions of Defence. 
Existing communication channels and processes enable efficient and appropriate liaison 
with the public, through established processes that do not unduly pull resources from 
other tasks. I therefore consider that the public interest against disclosing the personal 
details of Defence personnel outweighs the public interest in release. 
37.  Defence has an obligation to protect the privacy of third parties. As established above, I 
consider that there is strong public interest in maintaining confidentiality of the personal 
information of individuals and businesses included within the document. I find that the 
public interest in protecting this information outweighs the public interest in releasing 
this information. 
38.  In considering the public interest factors, I have given weight to, and have regard for, 
information about the Committee and the MATES program that is publicly available, 
5 
including through Commonwealth websites, and the media. On balance, I have 
determined that the public interest against disclosing details about the procedural and 
operational functions of Defence outweighs the public interest in release. 
39.  I am satisfied that the public interest factors against disclosure outweigh the factors for 
disclosure. On balance, it is against the public interest to release the identified 
information to you. I find the material to be exempt under sections 47C and 47E of the 
FOI Act. 
 
 
 
Digitally signed by 
isaac.seidl isaac.seidl 
Date: 2025.02.28 
10:18:55 +11'00'
BRIG Isaac Seidl 
Accredited Decision Maker 
Joint Health Command 
Department of Defence 
6