Date: Fri, 21 May 2021 19:16:23 +1000
Subject: Freedom of Information request - 2021 LGBTI and IDAHOBIT directive
From: Ben Fairless <xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx>
To: FOI requests at Defence <xxx.xxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxx.xxx.xx>

Dear Department of Defence,

I refer to this article by the ABC today:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-05-21/defence-chief-angus-campbell-political-correctness-morning-teas/100156436

To quote:
“The military has been ordered to stop holding morning teas which celebrate diversity and inclusion, as Defence chiefs remind personnel their "primary mission" is to protect Australia.”

== My Request ==
I request:
1. A copy of the final directive issued to Defence personnel referred to in the ABC article.

2. A copy of all drafts created of the directive.

3. A copy of any comments or correspondence made in relation to any of the drafts.

4. A copy of any correspondence with any ministerial office, minister or member of parliament that relates to LGBTI or IDAHOBIT in 2021.

5. A copy of any correspondence with Defence Leadership (SES/chiefs) including their assistants) that relates to LGBTI or IDAHOBIT in 2021.

== Exclusions ==
I exclude from my request:
1. Names and contact details of members of the public (who are not public servants or defence members)

2. Direct contact details of public servants and defence members

3. Duplicates of documents (for example, please only provide a single email thread if it contains all of the relevant commentary)

== Public Servant Information ==
I do not consent to the removal of public servant names and positions under s.22 as irrelevant. I note that the FOI Guidelines relevantly state:

"6.153 Where public servants’ personal information is included in a document because of their usual duties or responsibilities, it would not be unreasonable to disclose unless special circumstances existed.....

6.154 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 his or her name would be unreasonable to disclose. In seeking to claim the exemption an agency needs to identify the special circumstances which exist rather than start from the assumption that such information is exempt."

== Conditional Exemptions - deliberative processes ==
I respectfully remind the Department that, should they wish to argue any of the information is deliberative in nature, I would refer the Department to the relevant section of the FOI Guidelines:

"6.83 Agencies should start with the assumption that public servants are obliged by their position to provide robust and frank advice at all times and that obligation will not be diminished by transparency of government activities."

I look forward to your response.

Yours faithfully,

Ben Fairless

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

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

Is xxx.xxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxx.xxx.xx the wrong address for Freedom of Information requests to Department of Defence? If so, please contact us using this form:
https://www.righttoknow.org.au/change_request/new?body=defence

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.


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