DDVA HREC MATES Program
Dear Department of Defence,
The DDVA HREC Secretariat is part of the Defence department so Defence is the appropriate FOI entity to make this request to.
Defence FOI 371/23/24 released partial copy of the 16 October 2023 Minutes of the DDVA HREC.
In that released document the DDVA HREC stated about the MATES program:
“29. The Committee noted that due to recent media coverage and multiple emails from individuals regarding the release of personal data to third parties, a review of the project file was undertaken by the Secretariat. The outcome was:
a. discrepancies between the approved data and that provided by DVA to the researchers were identified
b. there was reference to surveys being conducted and tailored over time however no requests for amendment to reflect changes to surveys have been received
c. the complaint that was referred to in the newspaper article was not reported to the DDVA HREC.
30. As a result of the findings, the Chair wrote to the researchers and DVA, and requested further information regarding what data fields are being provided by DVA (including a description of the fields), copies of updated surveys and further information regarding the complaint that was referred to in the media article. They were also advised that no further data transfer was to occur until the matters identified above were resolved.
31. The University of South Australia and DVA have both provided a response however these have not addressed the requests for further information and provide contradictory information.
32. Members were advised that 33 individuals have contacted the HREC and have raised concerns about the release of their personal information to the University of South Australia. Another individual has contacted the HREC following receipt of the DVA response to the Freedom of Information request. The response shows that in addition to personal health information, the personal details of the individual including name, date of birth, gender and address are provided to the University of South Australia.
33. Members noted that the complaint that was submitted to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) related to an individual who opted out of participation in the program and DVA do not fully implement the request. The Committee had significant concerns about the time frame in which it took to implement the request. As the complaint related to a data breach and the data would have continued to have been used for research purposes (and therefore within the scope of the ethics approval) an adverse notification should have been submitted to the DDVA HREC.
34. Members discussed the matter at length and agreed on the following:
a. it is unclear what data is being provided for provision of targeted health care and what is being provided for research purposes
b. no further analysis of the existing data should occur until the matters are resolved. If the matter remains unresolved by the next meeting, ethical approval will be suspended until it is able to be addressed.”
I seek copy of the letters/documents of the Chair of the DDVA HREC to DVA and UniSA referred to in paragraph 30 of those Minutes, as well as the responses received by the Chair from UniSA and DVA referred to in paragraph 31 of those Minutes.
I also seek copy of any later correspondence between the DDVA HREC and DVA and/or UniSA about the MATES program.
There is a clear public interest, where entities conducting sensitive human research have breached the conditions of their ethics approvals, to disclose such official information so that organisations cannot be accused of covering up or hiding improper practices and that affected people have an opportunity to receive some transparency as to what has happened.
Yours faithfully,
Jenny
OFFICIAL
Dear Jenny,
Acknowledgement
I refer to your correspondence of 19 January 2024 seeking access to
documents held by the Department of Defence (Defence), under the Freedom
of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act). This email is to advise you that your
request has been received and allocated for Case Management.
The scope of your request is:
I seek copy of the letters/documents of the Chair of the DDVA HREC to DVA
and UniSA referred to in paragraph 30 of those Minutes, as well as the
responses received by the Chair from UniSA and DVA referred to in
paragraph 31 of those Minutes.
I also seek copy of any later correspondence between the DDVA HREC and DVA
and/or UniSA about the MATES program.
Background:
Defence FOI 371/23/24 released partial copy of the 16 October 2023 Minutes
of the DDVA HREC.
In that released document the DDVA HREC stated about the MATES program:
“29. The Committee noted that due to recent media coverage and multiple
emails from individuals regarding the release of personal data to third
parties, a review of the project file was undertaken by the Secretariat.
The outcome was:
a. discrepancies between the approved data and that provided by DVA to the
researchers were identified
b. there was reference to surveys being conducted and tailored over time
however no requests for amendment to reflect changes to surveys have been
received
c. the complaint that was referred to in the newspaper article was not
reported to the DDVA HREC.
30. As a result of the findings, the Chair wrote to the researchers and
DVA, and requested further information regarding what data fields are
being provided by DVA (including a description of the fields), copies of
updated surveys and further information regarding the complaint that was
referred to in the media article. They were also advised that no further
data transfer was to occur until the matters identified above were
resolved.
31. The University of South Australia and DVA have both provided a
response however these have not addressed the requests for further
information and provide contradictory information.
32. Members were advised that 33 individuals have contacted the HREC and
have raised concerns about the release of their personal information to
the University of South Australia. Another individual has contacted the
HREC following receipt of the DVA response to the Freedom of Information
request. The response shows that in addition to personal health
information, the personal details of the individual including name, date
of birth, gender and address are provided to the University of South
Australia.
33. Members noted that the complaint that was submitted to the Office of
the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) related to an individual
who opted out of participation in the program and DVA do not fully
implement the request. The Committee had significant concerns about the
time frame in which it took to implement the request. As the complaint
related to a data breach and the data would have continued to have been
used for research purposes (and therefore within the scope of the ethics
approval) an adverse notification should have been submitted to the DDVA
HREC.
34. Members discussed the matter at length and agreed on the following:
a. it is unclear what data is being provided for provision of targeted
health care and what is being provided for research purposes
b. no further analysis of the existing data should occur until the matters
are resolved. If the matter remains unresolved by the next meeting,
ethical approval will be suspended until it is able to be addressed.”
Disclaimer
Where staff details are captured in documents within the scope of your FOI
request, this information will be redacted; this includes private email
addresses, signatures, personnel (PMKeyS) numbers and mobile telephone
numbers, unless you specifically request such details. Defence excludes
duplicates of documents and any documents sent to or from you.
Furthermore, Defence only considers final versions of documents.
Charges
Defence may impose a charge for the work involved in providing access to
the documents in accordance with the Freedom of Information (Charges)
Regulations 2019. We will notify you if your request attracts a charge.
Please note that there is no charge for documents that contain the
personal information of the applicant.
Timeframe
The statutory timeframe to provide you with a decision on your request
ends on 18 February 2024. This period may be extended if we need to
consult with third parties, or for other reasons. We will advise you if
this happens.
Please note that where the due date falls on a Saturday, Sunday or public
holiday, the timeframe will expire on the next working day. This is in
accordance with the FOI Guidelines issued by the Office of the Australian
Information Commissioner under section 93A of the FOI Act.
Disclosure Log
Documents released under the FOI Act may be published on Defence’s
disclosure log, located on our website.
Contact Details
We will contact you via the email address you have provided. Please advise
if you would prefer us to use an alternative means of contact.
I am the Case Manager for this request. Should you have any questions
relating to your request, please do not hesitate to contact me via email:
[1][email address].
Kind regards,
Nicole|FOI Case Manager
Media and Information Disclosure Branch
Ministerial & Executive Coordination and Communication Division
Department of Defence
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
IMPORTANT: This email remains the property of the Department of Defence.
Unauthorised communication and dealing with the information in the email
may be a serious criminal offence. If you have received this email in
error, you are requested to contact the sender and delete the email
immediately.
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
Dear Nicole at FOI Case Management,
I consent to you treating the following information as exempt:
- the details of private email addresses, signatures, personnel (PMKeyS) numbers, and mobile and telephone numbers
- duplicates of documents in scope so that they only need to be considered and released once
- any draft document of which a final version exists
anything else it is not irrelevant.
Yours sincerely,
Jenny
OFFICIAL
Dear Jenny,
I refer to your correspondence of 19 January 2024, seeking access under
the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act) to the following documents:
I seek copy of the letters/documents of the Chair of the DDVA HREC to DVA
and UniSA referred to in paragraph 30 of those Minutes, as well as the
responses received by the Chair from UniSA and DVA referred to in
paragraph 31 of those Minutes.
I also seek copy of any later correspondence between the DDVA HREC and DVA
and/or UniSA about the MATES program.
Background:
Defence FOI 371/23/24 released partial copy of the 16 October 2023 Minutes
of the DDVA HREC.
In that released document the DDVA HREC stated about the MATES program:
“29. The Committee noted that due to recent media coverage and multiple
emails from individuals regarding the release of personal data to third
parties, a review of the project file was undertaken by the Secretariat.
The outcome was:
a. discrepancies between the approved data and that provided by DVA to the
researchers were identified
b. there was reference to surveys being conducted and tailored over time
however no requests for amendment to reflect changes to surveys have been
received
c. the complaint that was referred to in the newspaper article was not
reported to the DDVA HREC.
30. As a result of the findings, the Chair wrote to the researchers and
DVA, and requested further information regarding what data fields are
being provided by DVA (including a description of the fields), copies of
updated surveys and further information regarding the complaint that was
referred to in the media article. They were also advised that no further
data transfer was to occur until the matters identified above were
resolved.
31. The University of South Australia and DVA have both provided a
response however these have not addressed the requests for further
information and provide contradictory information.
32. Members were advised that 33 individuals have contacted the HREC and
have raised concerns about the release of their personal information to
the University of South Australia. Another individual has contacted the
HREC following receipt of the DVA response to the Freedom of Information
request. The response shows that in addition to personal health
information, the personal details of the individual including name, date
of birth, gender and address are provided to the University of South
Australia.
33. Members noted that the complaint that was submitted to the Office of
the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) related to an individual
who opted out of participation in the program and DVA do not fully
implement the request. The Committee had significant concerns about the
time frame in which it took to implement the request. As the complaint
related to a data breach and the data would have continued to have been
used for research purposes (and therefore within the scope of the ethics
approval) an adverse notification should have been submitted to the DDVA
HREC.
34. Members discussed the matter at length and agreed on the following:
a. it is unclear what data is being provided for provision of targeted
health care and what is being provided for research purposes
b. no further analysis of the existing data should occur until the matters
are resolved. If the matter remains unresolved by the next meeting,
ethical approval will be suspended until it is able to be addressed.”
The Accredited Decision Maker has determined that your request includes
documents which contain information about the business, commercial or
financial affairs of an organisation, or a person’s business or
professional affairs. In accordance with section 27 of the FOI Act, we are
required to consult with the person or organisation concerned before
making a decision on the release of the documents.
Section 15(6) of the FOI Act provides for a 30-day extension to allow for
this consultation process. Therefore, the deadline for providing you with
a decision on your request now ends on 19 March 2024.
Please contact our office via email: [1][email address]
if you have any questions.
Kind regards,
Nicole|FOI Case Manager
Media and Information Disclosure Branch
Ministerial & Executive Coordination and Communication Division
Department of Defence
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
[2]Freedom of information requests | About | Defence
IMPORTANT: This email remains the property of the Department of Defence.
Unauthorised communication and dealing with the information in the email
may be a serious criminal offence. If you have received this email in
error, you are requested to contact the sender and delete the email
immediately.
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. https://www.defence.gov.au/about/accessi...
OFFICIAL
Good afternoon Jenny,
I refer to your Freedom of Information (FOI) request regarding the MATES
program.
The current statutory deadline for you to receive a response is 19 March
2024.
Please be assured that your matter is well in progress, however, due to
processing requirements associated with your request, our office is
seeking your agreement to a 10-day extension of the statutory deadline
under section 15AA [extension with agreement] of the FOI Act.
Should you agree, the statutory deadline for you to receive a response to
your request will expire on 29 March 2024.
It would be appreciated if you could confirm your agreement to this
extension of time by close of business 15 March 2024.
Should you have any questions regarding this matter please do not hesitate
to contact the FOI team at [1][email address].
Kind regards,
FOI Case Manager
Media and Information Disclosure Branch
Ministerial & Executive Coordination and Communication Division
Department of Defence
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
[2]Freedom of information requests | About | Defence
IMPORTANT: This email remains the property of the Department of Defence.
Unauthorised communication and dealing with the information in the email
may be a serious criminal offence. If you have received this email in
error, you are requested to contact the sender and delete the email
immediately.
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. https://www.defence.gov.au/about/accessi...
Dear FOI Case Management,
The situation is this:
- Defence have requested a further extension of time of 10 days, after having already had an extension of time of 30 days granted for third party consultation;
- As that third party consultation required the search phase to be completed, as an agency can only consult after it has identified what documents may be released, this FOI only had the “draft FOI decision” stage remaining at the time the third party consultation extension of time was made.
- Defence have not given any explanation of the reasons for a further extension of time other than “processing requirements associated with your request”
As the 30 day extension of time already granted only involved the additional step of Defence sending copy of documents intended to be released to the third party, inviting if they wish to make objection (only a modest processing step), Defence has already benefited from a substantial extension of time to process this FOI that has been largely to just complete the statement of reasons.
Therefore please provide specific details of why an extra ten days to complete the statement of reasons is reasonable, given the 30 day extension of time already given.
Yours sincerely,
Jenny
OFFICIAL
Good afternoon Jenny,
Thank you for your email below regarding your FOI request about the MATES program.
I note that you are seeking additional information regarding Defence's request for a 10-day extension of time until 29 March 2024.
The delay in processing this matter is attributed to the need for thorough consultations with multiple third parties, which has involved discussing and coordinating various aspects of the FOI request, gathering additional information and ensuring comprehensive consideration of all perspectives in order to arrive at robust decision.
Please be aware that your matter is in its final stages and I am working to provide you with a response as early as possible.
I trust this information has been of assistance.
Kind regards,
FOI Case Manager
Media and Information Disclosure Branch
Ministerial & Executive Coordination and Communication Division
Department of Defence
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Freedom of information requests | About | Defence
Dear FOI Case Management,
You state:
- The delay in processing this matter is attributed to the need for thorough consultations with multiple third parties, which has involved discussing and coordinating various aspects of the FOI request, gathering additional information and ensuring comprehensive consideration of all perspectives in order to arrive at robust decision.
Given the use of past tense by you in these actions listed it is clear you are referring to matters already undertaken. As you have not outlined any future activity and nothing that would require a further extension of time to the 30 days already given and have provided no evidence in support it would be not be reasonable to agree.
Third party consultations aren’t a complicated process, as I’ve seen that it only involves the sending of an email or letter to those third parties attaching copy of documents proposed to be released, and then awaiting response from those third parties. After a response is received, or time has lapsed, that response is considered as part of the decision making process. It is no different than consideration of a redaction in respect of drafting such a decision.
The onus is on Defence to show that such an extension of time is reasonable. Vague and non-specific claims unsupported by any evidence do not achieve this.
Yours sincerely,
Jenny
Dear FOI Case Management,
It is disappointing that even after a 30 day extension of time the Department of Defence has made a deemed refusal decision by not provided a statement of reasons yesterday when decision was due.
The Department of Defence remains obligated to provide an FOI decision even where a refusal is deemed to occur.
Yours sincerely,
Jenny
Dear FOI Case Management,
As Defence has still failed to give a decision, even after the additional time Defence unreasonably applied for in addition to the prior 30 day extension of time granted, it seems the adverse findings made by Special Advisor Belinda Haywood about breaches of the Freedom of Information Act by the Defence FOI section in respect of a earlier FOI have not been taken on-board by the Defence FOI section.
Those adverse findings included:
- that the Defence FOI section had not conducted the request consultation process in accordance with the FOI Act and inappropriately commenced an unreasonable and unnecessary request consultation where it was not warranted
- that the request consultation notice “did not satisfy the requirements of section 24AB(2)”
- that Defence failed to take all steps reasonable to locate documents in scope by adopting an artificially narrow and unreasonable interpretation of the scope of the FOI
- that the third party consultation extension of time notice was invalid as the FOI delegate who made it did not have the delegation to make that decision
It is unfortunate that Defence continue to deal improperly with FOI requests contrary to its statutory obligations, such as intentionally letting FOI decisions go deemed to prevent the lawful access to government documents.
Yours sincerely,
Jenny
Dear FOI Case Management,
Is there a reason you have still not responded to the notice of your failure to provide a decision, even though weeks have passed?
Is this just rudeness on your part, or something more sinister?
Yours sincerely,
Jenny
OFFICIAL
Good afternoon Jenny,
I refer to your email below in which you are seeking an update regarding your FOI request about the MATES program.
I regret that the matter is still being processed. However, I would like to take this opportunity to assure you that we are endeavouring to provide you with a response as soon as possible.
Thank you for your patience.
Kind regards,
FOI Case Manager
Media and Information Disclosure Branch
Ministerial & Executive Coordination and Communication Division
Department of Defence
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Freedom of information requests | About | Defence
Dear FOI Case Management,
Define “soon as possible”. When is the latest date Defence commits to providing this FOI decision, and please detail what it is that has prevented Defence from giving this FOI in accordance with its obligations under the FOI Act.
Generic vague responses are not helpful and are tokenism at best.
Yours sincerely,
Jenny
Dear FOI Case Management,
This FOI is more than two months overdue and still has not been provided a decision by Defence. This conduct is appalling, and no reasonable excuse has been given.
I would like to make a formal complaint about this, and request it be investigated by Defence.
Yours sincerely,
Jenny
Dear FOI Case Management,
I have not received a response to my request of more than a fortnight ago to have my complaint treated as a formal FOI complaint for investigation by Defence’s FOI Review section.
This FOI is long overdue and no reasonable excuse or reason has been given.
Defence uses software to record and track processing of FOIs it receives, that can produce reports under s 17 to give a document with that history.
For the purposes of the FOI Act I now request that Defence provide me with a copy of that discrete information that is able to be produced using that software, of the processing history of this long overdue FOI as well as any other document that relates to the processing of this FOI including any search requests and any record of communication relating to this FOI.
Yours sincerely,
Jenny
OFFICIAL
Dear Jenny
Acknowledgement of complaint
We acknowledge your complaint regarding the handling of your FOI request
626/23/24, which has been forwarded to us for investigation.
We will provide you with a formal response at the earliest opportunity.
If you have any queries about the information above, please return a reply
by email to [1][email address].
Kind regards,
FOI Review Team
Media and Information Disclosure Branch
Ministerial & Executive Coordination and Communication Division
Department of Defence
PO Box 7910 Canberra BC ACT 2610
Email: [2][email address]
[3]http://www.defence.gov.au/FOI/privacy.asp
IMPORTANT: This email remains the property of the Department of Defence.
Unauthorised communication and dealing with the information in the email
may be a serious criminal offence. If you have received this email in
error, you are requested to contact the sender and delete the email
immediately.
OFFICIAL
Good afternoon Jenny
I apologise for the delay in providing you with a response to FOI 626/23/24.
I confirm Defence is continuing to process your request, and will provide you with a decision on access as soon as possible.
So that we may lodge your request below as a new Freedom of Information matter, can you please provide an email or other electronic address of how notices may be sent to you in accordance with s15(2)(c) of the FOI Act. The unique Right to Know email address assigned to FOI 626/23/24 is unable to be used for a supplementary FOI request. Alternatively please sent your request to [email address].
Kind regards
Erin
Freedom of Information
Media and Information Disclosure Branch
Ministerial & Executive Coordination and Communication Division
Department of Defence
OFFICIAL
Good afternoon Jenny
I refer to my email below dated 14 May 2024.
To date, Defence has not received a supplementary Freedom of Information request to the terms outlined in your email dated 10 May 2024 that satisfies s15(2)(c) of the FOI Act. As such, if we have not heard from you by COB Friday, 24 May 2024 your enquiry will be closed.
Further, I wish to advise that FOI 626/23/24 is in the final stages of completion and we will advise you of when the decision will be finalised early next week.
Kind regards
Erin
Freedom of Information
Media and Information Disclosure Branch
Ministerial & Executive Coordination and Communication Division
Department of Defence
IMPORTANT: This email remains the property of the Department of Defence. Unauthorised communication and dealing with the information in the email may be a serious criminal offence. If you have received this email in error, you are requested to contact the sender and delete the email immediately.
Dear Erin,
My FOI of 10 May 2024, received the same day by Defence, for documents that can be produced that relate to the processing of my 19 January 2024 FOI (which still remains unprocessed by Defence almost 5 months later) including any search requests and any record of communication relating to this FOI was not a “query” as you are aware.
While you may have a personal preference Erin as to how FOIs are made, those personal preferences are irrelevant.
The FOI of 10 May 2024 met all requirements of section 15 of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 and is required to be accepted as an FOI, as it explicitly stated it was a document request made under the FOI Act.
You claimed “The unique Right to Know email address assigned to FOI 626/23/24 is unable to be used for a supplementary FOI request”, but there are multiple examples showing there is no such limitation you claim. Not only are supplementary FOI requests containing different agency reference numbers common (an internal review for example) but also for documents such as those requested on the related FOI, as well as other FOI entities (such as the OAIC) using the same unique email.
The Right to Know unique email does not restrict in the manner you assert.
Defence remains obligated to give a decision on Monday 10 June to this FOI.
Yours sincerely,
Jenny
Dear FOI Case Management,
Despite claiming a decision would be made “very soon” months ago on this FOI made on 19 January 2024 Defence has still not done so.
This FOI is overdue by 192 days already despite Defence having received extensions of time to complete.
Why is Defence suppressing this FOI?
Jenny