Dear Department of Defence,

I request under FOI the following documents (s 17 compilation if necessary).

The time period for the scope of my FOI is FY16/17.

The subject matter for the scope of my FOI is all APP 12 Privacy Act access applications made to the Defence Privacy email account ([email address]) or by letter to the Defence Privacy Officer (so the scope only includes those applications made centrally to Defence’s main privacy office/officer, which I understand is based in the Defence People Group (DPG), from material obtained in an earlier FOI). It does not include APP 12 access applications made to other areas of Defence where DPG members where not involved in coordinating a response to the applicant.

I request to be complied under s 17 (unless existing document exists that provides the information sought), for the above scope, the following:
* the number of APP 12 applications received (broken down by month in FY16/17);
* for each APP 12 application received during FY16/17, the number of days that elapsed before Defence gave an APP 12 decision (from the day following the date the APP 12 access application was made); and
* the number of APP 12 access decisions refused in full, provided in part, or provided in full (from those received in FY16/17)

This information is not too dissimilar from that required to be provided by Defence in respect of FOI applications, and reported to the OAIC, so it’s possible a document that provides this information already is held by Defence, but in case it’s not, s 17 does apply.

Prior to any possible consultation, I require Defence to have conducted a proper sampling to establish a baseline estimate of processing time as specified by para 3.106 of the s 93A FOI Australian Information Commissioner Guidelines to agencies, rather than the generic random estimates Defence has provided in the past (given there have been a few IC review decisions by the Commissioner noting that Defence’s back of envelope estimates have been wildly overestimated).

Consideration should be given by Defence to publish privacy statistics publicly anyway, to benchmark its performance here (as I believe ANAO recently recommended).

Yours faithfully,

Verity Pane

Dear Jo,

Given Defence has used administrative access requests (AAR) as a mechanism to excuse itself from statutory processing timeframes, I do not wish to convert this FOI to AAR.

However, Defence may - if it believes access can be given earlier - process these requests in tandem (given no additional work is involved), and should the s 17 document be compiled before the 30 day period, provide release under AAR and I will subsequently withdraw the FOI.

That way, no disadvantage is present to either party, and Defence is not encouraged to game the request (as recently happened with a late “consultation” claim by Defence for commercial confidence implied, on what is copies of CMS Transaction Reports, which shows Defence doesn’t always approach its obligations with good faith).

Yours sincerely,

Verity Pane

Dear Joanne,

Your inference that access would be provided sooner if requested under administrative access (which your agency under a earlier FOI claimed released it from any obligation to provide access before any date, the timing of your response completely at your discretion) could be interpreted as coercion and implied penalty if FOI is used, which is contrary to the obligations the Act puts on agencies. Given your agency has gamed administrative access, to the detriment of applicants, I would suggest the reluctance of applicants to use it is entirely your agency’s own doing, given at least the FOI process puts specific obligations on agencies to perform (and provides review rights).

I take it your response today is not a decision per se, given it’s informality. But you appear to be saying only one APP 12 application was made in the time frame of the scope of the FOI (so hardly complex and voluminous to search and review, and given the differences between using a formal template letter to respond under FOI or a more vague and casual response as you have just given now, no difference in the time to take to process under either access scheme either, unlike you claim).

You appear to be suggesting Defence will be claiming exemption, for legal and personal information reasons, although you don’t specify the exemption sections of the Act, nor explain how - given aggregate data of the number of APP 12 applications received (broken down by month in FY16/17); the number of applications refused in full, in part, or agreed to - would reach these thresholds. The data sought has no personal data involved (although in your response you have given far more detail about this than would be appropriate, given it’s only one application, and the information given would be sufficient to identity that applicant, which is terribly bad form of you given an APP 12 Access Application is for personal information - in fact, you have potentially breached the Privacy Act by interfering with that applicant’s privacy I’d posit, by publicly posting considerable information that, in all but naming that applicant, enables identification _ I hope for you sake they don’t stumble across your disclosures).

If, as you claim, there is only AAP 12 application for FY16/17 (which took you more than two weeks to search and identity...), this FOI is very straightforward and simple, and I’d suggest you get on with it, instead of complaining about it, and breaching other Acts in doing so. It’s a very unprofessional response you have published, and it justifies Defence being one of my three agencies focussed on, in terms of my thesis study (so I guess that’s something at least, in that I made the right choice clearly).

Yours sincerely,

Verity Pane

Dear Joanne,

Furthermore, contrary to your claim this FOI is now complete, I can assure you no decision has been received, and your informal and inappropriate email is not a valid decision under the Act.

Therefore this FOI application is still open, and will be treated as such. Failure to provide proper decision by the statutory due date in result in a deemed refusal, and I will follow that up.

To be blunt, your behaviour here is grossly unprofessional and unethical, and is well below the minimum required by the Act.

Yours sincerely,

Verity Pane

Dear Peter,

I am pleased to see that the inappropriate, unlawful and unethical response of Jo Groves, refusing access informally, and claiming the FOI was now closed and “complete” has wisely been abandoned and Defence has subsequently provided proper FOI decision response as was always required under the FOI Act.

Of course this does not quite explain Jo Groves’ appalling behaviour in claiming it would be “inappropriate” to provide release of the information sought under s 17 (despite none of that information sought being able to make an individual’s identity apparent, or be reasonably be ascertained), but then providing information of no relevance to the FOI application, which ironically and rather appallingly, would make an individual’s identity reasonably be ascertained (it appears Jo Greaves intentionally sought to breach the Privacy Act, which isn’t a very good look).

I have sought of gotten used to the very low standard of Defence FOI responses, but to breach not only one but two Acts on the same FOI has to set some sort of new record low (we’re beyond just scrapping the barrel, but punching right through the bottom...).

Now this FOI can be closed (well at least in terms of response to me, I expect however Defence will still be dealing with this one for some time to come).

Yours sincerely,

Verity Pane