FOI reference: FOI 25-0032 LD
Andrew
Via Right to Know: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx

Dear Andrew,
Decision on your Freedom of Information Request
I refer to your information access request of 29 September 2024  made  to the
Department of Health and Aged Care (the department)  under the Freedom of
Information Act 1982 (Cth) (FOI Act). In your request, you sought access to:

Information pertaining to the methodology used or relied on by the CDNA, NNDSS or
the AHPPC for COVID-19 surveillance from 2019-present day? Specifically with
regard to how these bodies classify and report on:
- "COVID-19 cases"
- "COVID-19 hospitalisations"
- "COVID-19 ICU admissions"
- "COVID-19 deaths"
Could you please provide historical documents of how this methodology or guidance
may have changed from 2019-present.
I am authorised under subsection 23(1) of the FOI Act to make decisions in relation to
Freedom of Information requests. I am writing to notify you of my decision on your
access request.
Consultation on scope of request
On 1 October 2024, the department contacted you by email to consult you on the scope
of your request.
On this same day, you agreed to the department’s interpretation of the scope of your
request as follows:

Historical documents of how the below methodology or guidance used or relied on by
the CDNA, NNDSS or the AHPPC for COVID-19 surveillance may have changed
from 2019-29 September 2024. Specifically with regard to how these bodies classify
and report on:
- "COVID-19 cases"


GPO Box 9848 Canberra ACT 2601 - www.health.gov.au

link to page 4 - 2 -
- "COVID-19 hospitalisations"
- "COVID-19 ICU admissions"
- "COVID-19 deaths"
On 4 October 2024, the department contacted you via section 24AB of the FOI Act to
consult you on the scope of your request.
On 7 October 2024, you agreed to modify the scope of your request to the following:

Information showing the methodology/guidance suggested/given by the CDNA,
NNDSS or the AHPPC for COVID-19 surveillance should be conducted relating to
the classification and reporting of:
- "COVID-19 cases";
- "COVID-19 hospitalisations";
- "COVID-19 ICU admissions"; and
- "COVID-19 deaths".
At the time of the declaration of the pandemic in Australia, on or around 21/01/2020.
Reasonable searches
The department has conducted reasonable searches for documents in scope of your
request. As per the FOI Guidelines [at 3.89], these searches were undertaken with
reference to:
•  the subject matter of your request
•  the department’s current and past file management systems
•  the department’s record management systems
•  the individuals within the department with knowledge of the subject matter of
the documents, or who could assist with location of documents
•  the age of the documents.
I am satisfied that the searches undertaken were both thorough and reasonable in the
context of the scope of your request, the resources of the department, and the
requirements of the FOI Act and FOI Guidelines.
Decision on access
I have identified six documents that are relevant to your request.
These documents were in the possession of the department when your request was
received.
I have decided to grant access to three documents in full, and grant access to three
documents in part, subject to the deletion of exempt material.
A schedule setting out the documents relevant to your request, with my decision in
relation to those documents, is at ATTACHMENT A.

link to page 5 link to page 15

- 3 -
My  reasons for not providing access to material that has been deleted from the
documents are set out in ATTACHMENT B.
Legislative provisions
The FOI Act, including the provisions referred to in my decision, is available on the
Federal Register of Legislation website: www.legislation.gov.au/Series/C2004A02562.
The Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) (Privacy Act), can also be accessed from the Federal
Register of Legislation website here: www.legislation.gov.au/Series/C2004A03712.
Your review rights
I have set out your review rights at ATTACHMENT C.
Publication
Where I have decided to release documents to you, the department may also publish
the released material on its Disclosure Log, as required by section 11C of the FOI Act.
The department will not publish personal or business affairs information where it
would be unreasonable to do so.
For your reference the department’s Disclosure Log can be found at:
www.health.gov.au/resources/foi-disclosure-log.
Contacts
If you require clarification of any matters discussed in this letter you can contact the
FOI Section on (02) 6289 1666 or at xxx@xxxxxx.xxx.xx.
Yours sincerely

Emma Denehy
Assistant Secretary
Public Health & Surveillance Branch
29 October 2024

- 4 -
ATTACHMENT A.
SCHEDULE OF DOCUMENTS
FOI REQUEST 25-0032 LD

Document
Pages
Date
Description
Decision on
Relevant
access
provision/s
of FOI Act
1
27
24 July
Middle East Respiratory Syndrome
Release in full

2015
Coronavirus CDNA National Guidelines for
Public Health Units
2
14
18 March  NNDSS Core Dataset Field Specifications –  Exempt in part
s47F
2016
Version 10
3
91
20 January  CDNA JEG Extra Ordinary Meeting Agenda  Exempt in part
s22
2020
Papers
s47E(c)
s47E(d)
s47F
4
6
20 January  CDNA Extra Ordinary Teleconference
Exempt in part
s47E(c)
2020
Summary Notes
s47F
5
10
22 January  Novel Coronavirus 2019 (2019-nCoV) CDNA  Release in full

2020
National Guidelines for Public Health Units
6
11
23 January  Novel Coronavirus 2019 (2019-nCoV) CDNA  Release in full

2020
National Guidelines for Public Health Units

- 5 -
ATTACHMENT B.
REASONS FOR DECISION
FOI REQUEST 25-0032 LD
Material taken into account
In making my decision, I had regard to the following:
•  the FOI Act
•  guidelines issued by the Australian Information Commissioner under
section 93A of the FOI Act (FOI Guidelines)
•  the terms of your FOI request as outlined above
•  the content of the documents sought, and
•  advice from departmental officers with responsibility for matters relating to
the documents sought.
1.  Finding of facts and reasons for decision
My findings of fact and reasons for deciding that the exemptions  identified in the
schedule of documents apply to the parts of documents are set out below.
2.  Section 22 – deletion of irrelevant and exempt material
Section 22 of the FOI Act applies to documents containing exempt material
(subparagraph 22(1)(a)(i)) and irrelevant information (subparagraph 22(1)(a)(ii)) and
allows an agency to delete such material from a document.
I have deleted material in the documents which can reasonably be regarded as
irrelevant to your request and prepared an edited copy for release. This information
has been marked ‘s22’ in the documents released to you. This information has been
regarded as irrelevant as it does not relate to methodology or guidance provided by
the CDNA, NNDSS or AHPPC for the relevant terms within your request.
As I have decided that some of the information in the documents released to you is
exempt from disclosure, I have prepared an edited copy of the document(s) by deleting
the exempt information from the documents under section 22  of the FOI Act as
outlined above.
3.  Section 47E - Documents affecting certain operations of agencies
Section 47E of the FOI Act provides that a document is conditionally exempt if its
disclosure would, or could reasonably be expected to, do any of the following:
(a) prejudice the effectiveness of procedures or methods for the conduct of tests,
examinations or audits by an agency;
(b) prejudice the attainment of the objects of particular tests, examinations or
audits conducted or to be conducted by an agency;

- 6 -
(c) have a substantial adverse effect on the management or assessment of
personnel by the Commonwealth or by an agency;
(d) have a substantial adverse effect on the proper and efficient conduct of the
operations of an agency.
Paragraph 6.84 of the FOI Guidelines states that section 47E conditionally exempts a
document where disclosure would, or could reasonably be expected to, prejudice or
have a substantial adverse effect on certain identified agency operations.
Paragraph 6.103 of the FOI Guidelines states that for this conditional exemption to
apply, the documents must relate to either:
the management of personnel – including the broader human resources policies and
activities, recruitment, promotion, compensation, discipline, harassment and
occupational health and safety, or
the assessment of personnel – including the broader performance management policies
and activities concerning competency, in-house training requirements, appraisals and
underperformance, counselling, feedback, assessment for bonus or eligibility for
progression.
The department has statutory obligations under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011,
including a primary duty of care, so far as is reasonably practicable, to ensure that
persons are not put at risk from work carried out as part of the conduct of the
department. It is the aim of the department’s Work Health and Safety framework to
protect workers and other persons against harm to their health, safety and welfare
through elimination or minimisation of risks arising from work, and release of such
information could cause harm to their physical and mental wellbeing.
I am satisfied that disclosure of the personal information of public servants contained
in the documents relevant to your request may be substantially and adversely affect
the department’s ability to meet its statutory obligations under the WHS Act. There is
therefore a protective element to my decision to ensure that departmental staff are not
subjected to inappropriate risks or harm.
I am satisfied that, because of the nature of the work performed by the public servants
whose names and contact details are included in the documents, disclosure of that
information may pose a risk to the health and safety of those staff.
The response to the COVID-19 pandemic is a divisive issue within some elements of
the community, both within Australia and globally. There has been protest activity
outside the department’s buildings in Canberra on several occasions which has
required police attendance. In addition, Australian members of parliament have been
targets of violence and threats in this regard. The Victorian Department of
Parliamentary Services referenced in its 2020-21 annual report, that Ministers of
Parliament and their staff had been “frequently targeted by protest activity”, and
security incidents were growing significantly. For the 2020-21 year in the state of
Victoria, Parliamentary security responded to 112 incidents at ministerial offices, up
124 per cent on the previous year. Furthermore, both the Premier of Western Australia
and the former Chief Minister of the Northern Territory have been subjected to threats
of violence, both to themselves personally and to their families. In the case of the

- 7 -
threats to the Premier of Western Australia, these resulted in two members of the
community being charged with criminal offences.
The COVID-19 pandemic has seen an increase in single issue and grievance fuelled
harassment, animosity and in some instances, violence, towards those who are actively
involved in the government’s response to it. As such, there is a protective element to
my decision.
The department provides support and information to the Australian community and
has many external facing contact points including phone and email addresses for the
community to contact the department in a safe and efficient way. These general contact
details are readily available, including being published on the department’s website.
These specific channels of communication have been put in place to enable the
department to effectively manage its resources and protect the wellbeing of its staff.
They are resourced to manage enquiries from members of the public, with staff
appropriately trained to manage these types of enquiries. It is reasonable to expect that
if these channels of communication were by-passed, the department would experience
a diversion of its resources, and in addition the management functions of the agency
and its personnel would be detrimentally impacted.
I am satisfied that the parts of the documents marked ‘s47E(c)’ relate to workplace
health and safety functions.
I am satisfied that the parts of the documents marked ‘s47E(c)’ would, or could
reasonably be expected to have, a substantial adverse effect on the management or
assessment of personnel by the department.
Paragraph 6.84 of the FOI Guidelines states that section 47E conditionally exempts a
document where disclosure would, or could reasonably be expected to, prejudice or
have a substantial adverse effect on certain identified agency operations.
Examples provided in paragraph 6.113 of the FOI Guidelines indicate that use of
47E(d) may be appropriate where disclosure of the information would:
•  result in the need to make substantial changes to procedures to avoid
jeopardising the effectiveness or methods and procedures used by the agency,
and/or
•  prejudice of the ability of an agency to perform its statutory, regulatory or
public safety functions.
Paragraph 6.112 of the FOI Guidelines states that an agency’s operations may not be
substantially adversely affected if the disclosure 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.
Paragraph 6.115 of the FOI Guidelines state that the predicted effect of disclosure must
bear on the department’s ‘proper and efficient’ operations, that is, the department is
undertaking its expected activities in an expected manner. Where disclosure of the

- 8 -
documents reveals unlawful activities or inefficiencies, this element of the conditional
exemption will not be met and the conditional exemption will not apply.
You have requested access to documents that contain information about the
Communicable Diseases Network Australia.
I am satisfied that the parts of the documents marked ‘s47E(d)’ contain information
which, if disclosed, would or could reasonably be expected to, have a substantial and
an unreasonable effect on the department’s proper and efficient operations.
You have requested access to documents that contain non-public facing email
addresses used by the department.
I am satisfied that the parts of the documents marked ‘s47E(d)’ contain information
which, if disclosed, would or could reasonably be expected to, have a substantial and
an unreasonable effect on the department’s proper and efficient operations, namely,
its management of its communications channels.
If the email addresses in question were to released, it could reasonably be expected to
result in an influx of unsolicited emails to mailboxes used for internal administrative
processes. If this occurred, the department would need to change the addresses of or
decommission those inboxes, at operational and financial loss to the department. I am
therefore satisfied that any impediment to the efficient and effective administration of
departmental emails and communication channels would have a substantial adverse
effect on the proper and efficient conduct of the department.
In forming this decision, I note that the use of non-public facing operational email
addresses to manage administrative functions are operational activities that are being
undertaken in an expected and lawful manner. I am further satisfied that release of
these addresses would not reveal inefficiencies in the way in which the department
conducts those operational activities.
For the reasons outlined above, I have decided that the parts of the documents marked
‘s47E’ are conditionally exempt from disclosure under section 47E of the FOI Act.
Where a document is found to be conditionally exempt, the department must give
access to that document unless access to the document at this time would, on balance,
be contrary to the public interest. I have addressed the public interest considerations
below.
4. Section 47F – Documents affecting personal privacy
Section 47F of the FOI Act provides that a document is conditionally exempt if its
disclosure would involve the unreasonable disclosure of personal information about
any person (including a deceased person).
Personal Information
Personal information has the same meaning as in the Privacy Act. Specifically, section
6 of the Privacy Act provides that personal information means information or an opinion
about an identified individual, or an individual who is reasonably identifiable whether

- 9 -
the information or opinion is true or not; and whether the information or opinion is
recorded in a material form or not.
Paragraph 6.125 of the FOI Guidelines states that personal information can include a
person’s name, address, telephone number, date of birth, medical records, bank
account details, taxation information and signature.
Paragraph 6.132 of the FOI Guidelines states that an individual is a natural person and
does not include a corporation, trust, body politic or incorporated association. Section
47F specifically extends to the personal information of deceased persons.
I am satisfied that parts of the documents marked ‘s47F’ includes personal
information.
Unreasonable Disclosure of Personal Information
Subsection 47F(2) of the FOI Act provides that in determining whether the disclosure
would involve the unreasonable disclosure of personal information, I must have
regard to the following matters:
(a)  the extent to which the information is well known
(b) whether the person to whom the information relates is known to be (or to have
been) associated with the matters dealt with in the document
(c)  the availability of the information from publicly accessible sources
(d) any other matters that the agency or Minister considers relevant.
Paragraph 6.133 of the FOI Guidelines states that:
The personal privacy exemption is designed to prevent the unreasonable invasion of
third parties’ privacy. The test of ‘unreasonableness’ implies a need to balance the public
interest in disclosure of government-held information and the private interest in  the
privacy of individuals. The test does not, however, amount to the public interest test of
s 11A(5), which follows later in the decision making process. It is possible that the
decision maker may need to consider one or more factors twice, once to determine if a
projected effect is unreasonable and again when assessing the public interest balance.
I note that the AAT, in Re Chandra and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1984]
AATA 437 at paragraph 51-52, stated that:
... whether a disclosure is ‘unreasonable’ requires … a consideration of all the
circumstances, including the nature of the information that would be disclosed, the
circumstances in which the information was obtained, the likelihood of the information
being information that the person concerned would not wish to have disclosed without
consent, and whether the information has any current relevance … it is also necessary in
my view to take into consideration the public interest recognised by the Act in the
disclosure of information … and to weigh that interest in the balance against the public
interest in protecting the personal privacy of a third party ...
Paragraphs 6.137 and 6.138 of the FOI Guidelines state:
6.137
Key factors for determining whether disclosure is unreasonable include:
•  the author of the document is identifiable

- 10 -
•  the documents contain third party personal information
•  release of the documents would cause stress on the third party
•  no public purpose would be achieved through release
6.138
As discussed in the leading s 47F IC review decision of ‘FG’ and National
Archives of Australia [2015] AICmr 26, other factors considered to be relevant include:
•  the nature, age and current relevance of the information
•  any detriment that disclosure may cause to the person to whom the
information relates
•  any opposition to disclosure expressed or likely to be held by that person
•  the circumstances of an agency’s collection and use of the information
•  the fact that the FOI Act does not control or restrict any subsequent use or
dissemination of information released under the FOI Act
•  any submission an FOI applicant chooses to make in support of their
application as to their reasons for seeking access and their intended or likely
use or dissemination of the information, and
•  whether disclosure of the information might advance the public interest in
government transparency and integrity
The documents contain the personal information of Australian Public Service (APS)
staff who are not in the Senior Executive Service (SES).
Paragraph 6.152 of the FOI Guidelines states:
When considering whether it would be unreasonable to disclose the names of public
servants, there is no basis under the FOI Act for agencies to start from the position that
the classification level of a departmental officer determines whether their name would
be unreasonable to disclose. In seeking to claim the exemption, an agency needs to
consider the factors identified above at [6.135] – [6.138] in the context of the document,
rather than start from the assumption that such information is exempt.However, I note
that in Chief Executive Officer, Services Australia and Justin Warren [2020] AATA 4557
(Warren), at paragraph 83, Deputy President S A Forgie noted:
The whole of the FOI Act is a finely tuned balance between two interests. In one side of
the balance is the facilitation and promotion of access to a national resource that is
information held by Government, which enables increased public participation in
Government processes and increased scrutiny, discussion, comment, and review of the
Government’s activities. In the other is the protection of the national interest, the
essential operation of government and the privacy of those who deal with government.
It is most important, therefore, that its provisions be read very carefully and that
presumptions should not be introduced that are not expressed, or necessarily implicit,
in the words Parliament has chosen to achieve the balance that it wants. Those words
should be the starting point of any consideration rather than any presumption that
agencies and ministers should start from the position that the inclusion of the full names
of staff in documents increases transparency and increases the objects of the FOI Act.
The response to the COVID-19 pandemic is a divisive issue within some elements of
the community, both within Australia and globally. There has been protest activity
outside the department’s buildings in Canberra on several occasions which has

- 11 -
required police attendance. In addition, Australian members of parliament have been
targets of violence and threats in this regard. The Victorian Department of
Parliamentary Services referenced in its 2020-21 annual report, that Ministers of
Parliament and their staff had been “frequently targeted by protest activity”, and
security incidents were growing significantly. For the 2020-21 year in the state of
Victoria, Parliamentary security responded to 112 incidents at ministerial offices, up
124 per cent on the previous year. Furthermore, both the Premier of Western Australia
and the former Chief Minister of the Northern Territory have been subjected to threats
of violence, both to themselves personally and to their families. In the case of the
threats to the Premier of Western Australia, these resulted in two members of the
community being charged with criminal offences.
The COVID-19 pandemic has seen an increase in single issue and grievance fuelled
harassment, animosity and in some instances, violence, towards those who are actively
involved in the government’s response to it. As such, there is a protective element to
my decision.
I am satisfied that the disclosure of personal information contained within the
documents  would, in the circumstances, constitute an unreasonable disclosure of
personal information for the following reasons:
•  the individuals whose personal information is contained in the documents are
identifiable
•  release of this information would cause anxiety to the individuals concerned
•  no further public purpose would be achieved through the release of the
personal information, noting that the personal information is included in the
document as a result of their employment circumstance
•  the information is current and has not lost its sensitivity through the passage of
time
•  the placing of the personal information of individuals who work for a
government department into the public domain has the potential to place those
individuals at risk of harassment, abuse, threats and intimidation. This would
be detrimental to the individuals concerned, and potentially also their families.
Mitigating this risk is even more important with the prevalence of social media
and technology allowing individuals to be more easily identifiable and
contactable in online environments
•  the individuals  would not expect the information to be placed in the public
domain, and detriment may be caused to the individuals  to whom the
information relates, and
•  the FOI Act does not control or restrict any subsequent use or dissemination of
information released under the FOI Act.
For the reasons outlined above, I have decided that the parts of the documents marked
‘s47F’ are conditionally exempt from disclosure under section 47F of the FOI Act.

- 12 -
Where a document is found to be conditionally exempt, the department must give
access to that document unless access to the document at this time would, on balance,
be contrary to the public interest. I have addressed the public interest considerations
below.
5.  Disclosure is not in the public interest
Pursuant to subsection 11A(5) of the FOI Act, the department must give access to
conditionally exempt documents unless access to the documents at that time would,
on balance, be contrary to the public interest. I have therefore considered whether
disclosure of the documents would be contrary to the public interest.
Paragraph 6.224 of the FOI Guidelines states:

The public interest test is considered to be:
•  something that is of serious concern or benefit to the public, not merely
of individual interest
•  not something of interest to the public, but in the interest of the public
•  not a static concept, where it lies in a particular matter will often depend
on a balancing of interests
•  necessarily broad and non-specific and
•  relates to matters of common concern or relevance to all members of the
public, or a substantial section of the public.
Factors favouring disclosure
Section 11B of the FOI Act provides that factors favouring access to documents in the
public interest include whether access to the documents would do any of the
following:
•  promote the objects of the FOI Act
•  inform debate on a matter of public importance
•  promote effective oversight of public expenditure, or
•  allow a person to access his or her own personal information.
Having regard to the above, I consider that disclosure of the conditionally exempt
information at this time:
•  would provide access to documents held by an agency of the Commonwealth
which would promote the objects of the FOI Act by providing the Australian
community with access to information held by the Australian Government.
•  would not inform debate on a matter of public importance
•  would not promote effective oversight of public expenditure, and
•  would not allow you access to your own personal information.

- 13 -
Factors weighing against disclosure
I consider that the following public interest factors weigh against disclosure of the
conditionally exempt information at this time, on the basis that disclosure:
s47E(c)
In considering the public interest in disclosing the names and contact details of the
departmental officers to you, I have taken into consideration the following factors that
weigh against disclosure of the conditionally exempt information at this time:
•  the type of work undertaken by the relevant officers
•  the fact that the relevant officer’s details are not publicly available, including in
the Government Online Directory
Having regard to these factors, I consider that release of the information to you:
•  could reasonably be expected to prejudice the fair treatment of individuals in
relation to allegations of misconduct or unlawful, negligent or improper
conduct. Any impediment to the ability of the department to manage its staff
in relation to investigations and/or enquiries into allegations of misconduct or
unlawful, negligent or improper conduct is contrary to the objects of the Public
Service Act 1999, and is therefore contrary to the public interest.
•  could reasonably be expected to prejudice the ability of the department to
effectively manage its staff. Any impediment to the ability of the department
to manage its staff to meet its operational requirements and regulatory
obligations is contrary to the public interest.
•  could reasonably be expected to adversely impact the ability of the
department to attract, recruit and retain staff if a precedent of release of
employment information was established. Any impediment to the ability of
the department to meet its operational requirements and regulatory
obligations is contrary to the public interest.
s47E(d)
•  could reasonably be expected to impede the flow of information to the
department as a regulatory agency. Any impediment to the ability of the
department to undertake its regulatory functions is against the public interest.
•  could reasonably be expected to divert correspondence towards the
department’s non-public-facing communication channels, which are not
intended or resourced for this purposed. Any disruption to the department’s
communication channels could reasonably be expected to result in disruption
to the operations of the agency, which is against the public interest.
•  would not provide any additional benefit to the public, noting that the
department already has existing public communications channels that are, in
my view, readily available and sufficient for this purpose.

- 14 -
s47F
•  could reasonably be expected to prejudice the protection of the relevant
individuals’  right to personal privacy,  noting that the substance of the
documents has been released to you and disclosure of the personal information
would not provide you with any further insight into the workings of
government.
•  would not achieve any  public purpose and, on balance, would harm the
individuals’ right to personal privacy, which would be contrary to the objects
of the Privacy Act 1988 and therefore against the public interest.
•  would prejudice the department’s ability to meet its statutory obligations and
responsibilities in relation to the work health and safety of its employees. Any
impediment to the ability of the department to manage the health and safety
of its staff would be contrary to the objects of the Work Health and Safety Act
2011 (Cth), and therefore contrary to the public interest.
•  could reasonably be expected to adversely impact the ability of the
department to attract, recruit and retain staff. Any impediment to the ability of
the department to meet its operational requirements is contrary to the public
interest.

In forming my decision, I confirm that I have not taken into account any of the
irrelevant factors set out in subsection 11B(4) of the FOI Act, which are:
(a) access to the document could result in embarrassment to the
Commonwealth Government, or cause a loss of confidence in the
Commonwealth Government;
(b) access to the document could result in any person misinterpreting or
misunderstanding the document;
(c) the author of the document was (or is) of high seniority in the agency to
which the request for access to the document was made;
(d) access to the document could result in confusion or unnecessary debate.
Conclusion
For the reasons set out above, after weighing all public interest factors for and against
disclosure, I have decided that, on balance, disclosure of the conditionally exemption
information would be contrary to the public interest. I am satisfied that the benefit to
the public resulting from disclosure is outweighed by the benefit to the public of
withholding the information. I have therefore redacted the  conditionally exempt
information from the documents released to you.

- 15 -
ATTACHMENT C.
YOUR REVIEW RIGHTS
If you are dissatisfied with my decision, you may apply for a review.
Internal review
You can request internal review within 30 days of you receiving this decision. An
internal review will be conducted by a different officer from the original decision
maker.
No particular form is required to apply for review although it will assist your case to
set out the grounds on which you believe that the original decision should be changed.
Applications for internal review can be made by:
Email:
xxx@xxxxxx.xxx.xx
Mail:
FOI Unit (MDP 516)
Department of Health and Aged Care
GPO Box 9848
CANBERRA ACT 2601
If you choose to seek an internal review, you will also have a right to apply for
Information Commissioner review (IC review) of the internal review decision once it
has been provided to you.
Information Commissioner review or complaint
You have the right to seek Information Commissioner (IC) review of this decision. For
FOI applicants, an application for IC review must be made in writing within 60 days
of the decision. For third parties who object to disclosure of their information, an
application for IC review must be made in writing within 30 days of the decision.
If you are not satisfied with the way we have handled your FOI request, you can lodge
a complaint with the OAIC. However, the OAIC suggests that complaints are made to
the agency in the first instance.
While there is no particular form required to make a complaint to the OAIC, the
complaint should be in writing and set out the reasons for why you are dissatisfied
with the way your request was processed. It should also identify the Department of
Health and Aged Care as the agency about which you are complaining.
You can make an IC review application or make an FOI complaint in one of the
following ways:
•  online at www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-information/reviews-and-
complaints/
•  via email to xxxxx@xxxx.xxx.xx
•  by mail to GPO Box 5218 Sydney NSW 2001, or
•  by fax to 02 9284 9666.

- 16 -
More information about the Information Commissioner reviews and complaints is
available on the OAIC website here: www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-information/foi-
review-process.
Complaint
If you are dissatisfied with action taken by the department, you may also make a
complaint directly to the department.
Complaints to the department are covered by the department’s privacy policy. A form
for lodging a complaint directly to the department is available on the department’s
website here: www.health.gov.au/about-us/contact-us/complaints

Document Outline