Download original attachment
(Text file)

This is an HTML version of an attachment to the Freedom of Information request 'Request for OAIC Review, Department of Health FOI request 25-0019 LD'.

Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2025 03:17:45 +0000
Subject: Freedom of Information request - Request for OAIC Review, Department of Health FOI request 25-0019 LD
From: Health Anon <xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx>
To: OAIC - FOI <xxx@xxxx.xxx.xx>

**************************************************************************
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organisation. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe.
**************************************************************************

Dear Office of the Australian Information Commissioner,

I am seeking an Information Commissioner review of the Department of Health and Aged Care's handling, deemed refusal and decision to my request FOI request 25-0019 LD

You may view the history and details of my request at https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/accenture_ict_transformation_del

Firstly, I have not been provided with all the documents the department has claimed to release under their internal review, and despite repeated follow up requests to the department, they have not provided any further response.

Specifically, in their internal review decision, dated 9 January 2025, (available here https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/accenture_ict_transformation_del#incoming-39475) some of the pages they state are meant to be included in the released documents have not been included in the PDF

According to Attachment A - Schedule of Documents - the total pages released should be 5 + 260 + 6, for a total of 271 pages, but the PDF they provided has a total of 164 pages.

Document seems to be where the pages are missing -
Pages 35 - 46, document 2, appear missing
Pages 55 - 142, document 2, appear missing

They have not responded to my request for a corrected PDF to be released.

Further, I ask you to review their decision making.

While it is difficult to make a full assessment of the documents, considering they are incomplete, I reserve my right to update this request for review if they subsequently release more information.

But based on what they have released, I request you review the following exemptions used

Exemption of “Attachment A – Benefit to Australian Economy”, FOI 25-0019 LD IR - Document 2, Pages 16,17 and 18 of 260.

I request the Information Commissioner review the Department’s exemption of this section of the document under s47G.

The Department’s reasoning for their use of this exemption, contained on pages 18 and 19 of 25-0019 LD IR Attachment B talks to two reasons for this exemption - the first relates to the business information of unsuccessful tenderers, the second relates to the pricing and costs of services to the department, as well as the overall business affairs of a third party.

The department notes

“I have also had regard to the public and private interest factors, and I am satisfied that the preservation of the profitability and ongoing viability of the affected third party business outweighs the public interest in the disclosure of this information.”

I contend that the Benefit assessment - the result of a requirement on officials to consider the economic benefit of a procurement to the Australian economy in the context of determining value for money for higher value procurements, could not be exempt under s47G as it should not relate to the interests of a third party, but rather be an assessment of the benefits to the australian economy.

I, again, contend that releasing this information would strengthen the departments’ future procurement processes through providing transparency around the value for money assessment and the benefits to the australian economy. and the Department has provided no evidence specifically why this section in particular would impact their ability to obtain best value for money in future procurement processes - and releasing their assessment, which I note is a key claim made by the Department as to why there is no public interest here “ as noted above that the procurement was undertaken in a lawful and expected process” - how convenient that they make this contention as the reasoning against releasing information to the public that would confirm or otherwise their assertion.

Exemption of savings and pricing information under s47D

I also ask the OAIC to review the departments use of s47D in exempting documents from release.

The department states that releasing this information would compromise the department’s future financial interest in seeking to obtain the best value for money through a competitive tendering process for contracts. Any impediment to the ability of the department to obtain best value for money is against the public interest.

I contend that transparency around a successful tender cannot hinder the department in achieving future value for money concerns, and indeed would support it.

Weighing of factors against disclosure

The department argues that disclosure of conditionally exempt information (noting I am also disputing it is conditionally exempt), is not in the public interest, and argues that disclosure of this information would not inform debate on a matter of public importance.

I ask the OAIC to overturn this contention, and again make the argument that disclosure of conditionally exempt information contained in my request would inform debate on matters of public importance, more broadly than just promoting effective oversight of public expenditure.

For example, as outlined in this public news article from the Saturday Paper, October 2024, Exclusive: FOI docs reveal courting of health officials - there are potential issues broader than effective oversight of public expenditure, such as corruption and mal-administration. The article is available at https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/health/2024/10/05/exclusive-foi-docs-reveal-courting-health-officials

While these issues are related to oversight of public expenditure, I ask the OAIC to find that there are at least three out of the four factors in favour of disclosure of conditionally exempt information, rather than just two out of four as contended by the Department.

On balance, i contend, the public interest in disclosure outweighs any counter-concerns raised by the department.

I also note that the referenced OAIC review decision, referenced by the Department in it’s arguments relating to why it does not consider disclosure would inform a matter of public debate - Janet Rice and Department of Health and Aged Care (Freedom of information) [2024] AICmr 41 - does not appear to support their argument and rather appears to indicate that the OAIC review would have agreed that release of this conditionally exempt information would indeed inform public debate.

Yours faithfully,
Health Anon

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx

Is xxx@xxxx.xxx.xx the wrong address for Freedom of Information requests to Office of the Australian Information Commissioner? If so, please contact us using this form:
https://www.righttoknow.org.au/change_request/new?body=oaic

This request has been made by an individual using Right to Know. This message and any reply that you make will be published on the internet. More information on how Right to Know works can be found at:
https://www.righttoknow.org.au/help/officers

Please note that in some cases publication of requests and responses will be delayed.

If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.


-------------------------------------------------------------------